i ! ΠῚ ι | ΤΠ itt ΡΜ ;
ἀτγε:: tre
ἢ , Π ι :
Π ti ' ξ
tenet A spree δ
: } pitty ' ᾿ :
; εἰ
᾿ ΗΠ
δ 4 Fa Ε +
; H
ἱ : | 5: ϊ
: [2 Π
' ὰ
ε ;
5 £
> 1
- :
i
j
; ‘ e ; ; . +
i ; ᾿
mil ι
i Η ! Ε
| ι ἪΠ
’ | titi i
‘i
εἰ ;
i itl ΗΠ’ ' ! ' i} ili
Ι iif
; i i i ; i : '
i Ι ! if i i i i i ‘
tit i i i ἪΠ iti Ἢ] ΠΙΠΤΠΠΉΗΙ i i i i’
PRESENTED
BY THE
Church of England
Book Sortety,
11, ADAM STREET, LONDON.
FOUNDED 1880.
Greasurer.
Frank A. Bevan, Esq.
Secretarp.
Joun SHRIMPTON, Esq.
. ( “
εὖ ᾿ ΄ ‘
Ν Υ̓ ᾿ i
Ξ ; ι δ
| , τω
J , ὃ ‘
τὴν; δι Ν τ Υ
% . ᾿ . ᾶ,
δι" ‘ ‘
os ᾽ ~
le : ᾿ i.
4 i ‘ ᾿ ι 7
‘ 4 : a ; ,
: a 7 P F ν : ᾿
᾿ Δ . : ) -
Sate = ὧν i .
Ns 5 . 7 ᾿ : A a
: ’ ale 2 ἔ : ! “ e- ‘.
é τ sal - 7 Φ "2
ἢ r ᾿ "
ἘΣ Cpe ' 3 ᾿
4 ᾿
ΓΝ ὶ Ag { .
αι ἐν ;
᾿ R
{ ιν iz A ‘
4f é ;
an ins Ἢ
; a, < | ἐγ:
| Ἢ ἐς" δ", ᾿ ᾿ ἱ | Ἷ
© Ἀ a : ;
=” ti 7 A ῇ , ἱ
am, ὲ 7 Ἢ
nf ss. ‘ ( ' f
» A J , > J
8 - a nee I Ἶ 4
¥ \ Ξ [ ;
5 2 A = 2o > 2 ws F j % > 4 . > ὺ
a ἦν ἢ Ἵ ᾿ ἣ με" Ὶ
1 ἂν ὧν ᾿ - ; ii 8
᾿ ‘
os a” oe ta ᾿ Poy 7 ͵ Β
iv I ΕΣ ἂν ® @ δ᾿ be *. ᾿
= ‘ . 1 ὰ 4 ‘ 7
Ἵ : ie “ τ ‘ a 8
8 . Ἶ ᾿ 7 hs
sil ; a mtg , < ' ze ᾿
τ᾿ Ἷ ἵ . ‘ 7 an - a
THE
Pek VEN E.R GLE
ΟΕ
_ FAITH AND PRACTICE.
Heretici, quum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum
Scripturarum, . . . quia varie sint dicte, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas
ab his qui nesciant Traditionem. Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per
vivam vocem.—IRENZUS.
Φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως καὶ ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία, ἢ ἀθετεῖν τι τῶν
γεγραμμένων, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τῶν μὴ γεγραμμένων. --- Basi,
Αὐτάρκεις εἰσιν αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας
ἀπαγγελίαν.--- ATHANASIUS,
I see not how you differ from that opinion which is THE GROUND OF ALL Pa-
PISTRY, that is, that all things necessary unto salvation are not EXPRESSED in the
Scriptures ... There is nothing necessary to eternal life which is not both com-
manded and expressed in the Scripture. I count it expressed, when it is either in
manifest words contained in Scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary collection.
—ARCHBISHOP WHITGIFT.
We of the Church of England affirm, that the Scriptures contain a COMPLETE
RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, and we reject every doctrine and precept as
essential to salvation, or to be obeyed as divine, which is not supported by their
authority—BisHorp ToMLINE.
ν. 3 |
DIVINE RUE
FAITH AND PRACTICE;
OR,
A DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
THAT HOLY SCRIPTURE HAS BEEN, SINCE THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES,
THE SOLE DIVINE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE
TO THE CHURCH:
AGAINST THE DANGEROUS ERRORS OF
THE AUTHORS OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES
AND THE ROMANISTS,
AS, PARTICULARLY, THAT THE RULE OF FAITH 15 “MADE UP OF
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION TOGETHER; ETC.
IN WHICH ALSO THE DOCTRINES OF
The Apustolical Succession, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Kc.
ARE FULLY DISCUSSED.
By WILLIAM GOODE, M.A., F.S.A.,
OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; RECTOR OF ALLHALLOWS THE GREAT AND LESS, LONDON.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL.. EE.
SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED.
LONDON :
HATCHARD & CO., 187, PICCADILLY.
—_—
1853.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
University of Toronto
https://archive.org/details/divineruleoffait03good
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TO] VOL. EEF.
PAGE
CHAPTER X.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK 1—317
Principal Contents.
Section I.
Preliminary remarks ............ SAMO SOO ae oan agers ic ΞΕΙΣ Sane 1—8
SUAMELOLL TICCESSALY wacscncassscecsuavapdeccesaacesevescddccseustscnacdscseadsssceuenheus i
Patristical use of the word’ Tradition? .cc.ccc.ccccccsscacuccscecosccssscccass 2—6
General GHSCrVaAtiOUS=..ccsccotsceccescesscavecscocevncceacteveecsede@ucusndssnevevence 6—8
Section II.
On the Tractators’ doctrine of Catholic Consent being a divine in-
formant, supplementary to, and interpretative of, Scripture...... 8—19
General TEMANKS |. casctvesdan-cdcssedewccncctesduchbescutsacbedvchuavetsaddscacyweust 8—1i1
Testimony of,
Juste Martyr (fl 2s :140,)) .ccsevcseusersevesvvwsvoostevedscsevecceusccesesens 11, 12
OTTO (er te, As) ses waueneusvesceswesudsdactoucscceusweoveusensadeseancuenstais 12, 18
Jerome (fl. a. 378.) ..... deenceavess eroelos 14
PATI EIST (Horde hoOn)) «uveeenseacestnnte bebe aesaceersavercenc See a 14
WVidOLOMIS TEStIMONIESscuscvsrsesevscehacs«sseecdscvapeccveasscncrscnstearseddevs 15—19
Section ITI.
Whether Scripture is the sole and complete Rule of faith and Judge of
controversies. .... πε τῆν Ὁ ἢ ὙΌΣ Oa mrvaleretetsiatate me ΣῈ πο sane sare 19--211
Testimony of
ΠΥ ΠΗ ΕΠ (6 PRLS) caw naaswatesassussuvahssicaessnesucsntnncadasasscaccsssvesee
Polycarp (fl. a. 108.)........... -
Justin Martyr (fl. a. 140.) ..
Treneens (f'd. 1672): «νους εν νντονοιι
Asterius Urbanus (fl. a. 188.) .... ate a
Wertallian (fl. 25192) ~ sexocccansvsticouncsvwexesstuvalacscsescsevenducessan cue
lenient of Alexandria:(fl:-a: 1O2:)\cascsietssyissectssissesncactuevecrvest
Hippolytus the Martyr (fl. ἃ. 220.) ......
ΣΕ a; 2000) vases οὐνονοσοιεννουτενεν
Dionysius of Alexandria (fl. a. 247.)
Sal TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
Cyprian (fl. 8. 248.) c.csccececscssesesesecencscesensecssecssensnesesesenenes 60—67
Lactantius (fl. 4. 303.) ....-.2sees00e 67
Eusebius of Cesarea (fl. a. 315.) Kc ἘΞ 67—69
The Council of Nice, or, Nicwa (8. 325.)........cscecccsconcsecsessess 69—100
Athanasius (fl. &. 326.)........ssses000 100—110
Cyril of Jerusalem (fl. a. 350) ..... oa 110—114
Hilary: of Poictiers (Gia. B54.) oo osassaaccontssvrisscssoudussousenusesus 114—120
Epiphantus (fia; N68.) .ccocctencsouveceracsesssnconussncussusatenscract cece 120—126
Optatos (fa. BGS) Coenscosdenucanauadasenessvonserescnessseesnccnesesecunese 126—128
Basil of Cesarea (fl. a. 370.) ........ Bene et croc es eee te 128—140
Gregory Οἱ ΝΎΒΕΒ [{{| 2. 10.) secsosenncsunspeucessressscasewovasdescedvess 140—147
Ephrem Syrus (fl. a. 370.) .........6. sorsccentcconse orc 147
Ambrose (fi. a. 374.) ........200. τς ΞΕ Ύ ΤΕΣ ΡῈ ξοίτθες. 148—150
DELOME (Ho. 518. )escancc-nr--scapsea-uosan Senaeeeseanweaneaseae 150—154
Theophilus of Alexandria (fl. 8. 385.)........c-sssecescsecseceecereee 154—156
Rufinus (fi. a. 390.) . ἘΞ - 157
Augustine (fl. a. 396.) . easter x .... 157—171
(Chrysostems {Π 8. S90.) sececcecccurvee-senecdssaeensn anes sues πα ΞΕ ΒΕ ΠΕ ΕΙΣ 172—181
Cyril of Alexandria (Η- 6. 4150}. recececavaneseuscancapsersesasusanexuouce 181—187
Isidore of Pelusium (fi. a. 412.)..... τες 187
‘Theodoret (Hs. 2-425.) <c-sncsvconeutensosaenave ἘΞ 5: 5 5:1.5:- 5:55 187—194
Vincentius of Lirins (fl. a. 434) .........0008 seeeeeeres 194—207
Salvian (fl. a. 440.) .....ssccsseseeeeeee -- SOSPER τὸ 207
Prosper (il. 5: 444.) enone ossnauaseesasncean ἘΞ .... 207, 208
Cosmas Indicopleustes (fl. a. 635.) .......... spcceecot 208
Gregory: (Ὁ 5: 000.) eseenesnnes= ney steele eens temsec nace n-eseenesereesaaes 208—211
SEcTIon IV.
Whether Scripture is the sole Divine Rule of practice....... o--+-e. 211—219
Some of the Fathers distinctly advocate the view that, in all
points, Holy Scripture is the sole Divine Rule of practice, as—
Gy Drisin (fl:'n, DAS 1500 10 oavcuccosanenssnsceecradues eaneerods 212
Firmilian of Cesarea (fl. a 233.)........ 212, 213
Socrates the historian (fl. 2. 439.) ........ccssesccssesesccscecccesenes 213
Language of Gregory of Nyssa observable in this respect......... 214
Of those who appear in some parts of their writings to take the
opposite view, some have elsewhere so modified their testimony
as to leave it upon the whole but little different to all practical
purposes from that of the former, as—
WErome (ΙΕ ΠΝ ἐς Ὁ) τ 5 ον one cicerapendt<asassaateeeeteeweasasea 214, 215
Augustine (fl. a. 396.) 215—217
Were the testimony of these Fathers different from what it is,
our opponents, both Romanists and Tractators, could not con-
sistently maintain, that such (supposed) Apostolical traditions
are obligatory on the Church, because they do not themselves
adopr them: } 5125 -ccedvscnasakeecessdenveteesausBerspeoe Ganda τ ρτ προς 217—219
SEcTION V.
Whether Scripture is sufficiently clear to teach the faith, and how its
meaning is best ascertained... .............0eseecces ὌΠ. 219-202
Testimony of
Justin Martyr (fl. a. 140.)
Treviass (8a. 1672) \o-<souseancastrasupivavancscca-wasesspheroic eer eae
Theophilus of Antioch (fl. a. 168.) . se cates
Terballian (A/a, 105) sccvacsasseonccenvesnsenscet¥ecvesecesteaeoeeieanenee
Clement of Alexandria (fl. ἃ. 192.) ......cssssssssssccescssascacsseees 229—232
Origen ἡ {ΠῚ τς ἢ ΒΚ eae
Cyprian (fl. a. 248.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS. vil
PAGE
ie yetcane (Η- HAI), i cecccasposasacuccacsacevseseubacnccccusensnatdwonenses 237
Gregory of Neocesarea (fl. a. 254.) ..... ee 238
Lactantius (fl. a. 303.) ....cecsessssecssessoes ee -..» 238, 239
Athanasius (fl. a. S2G.)...cccccccsesecoagsssasccscccrasscsseesecnsesvescrsoss 239—243
RAE προ (flat hats te Me), cael τς aahd ‘sue sucbssacssutavavsasesseeuses-s> este 243, 244
Cyril of Jerusalem (fi. a. 350.) ... -- .... 244, 245
EitiarysOt EOICHOrs (4 8: ΘΕΜΕΣ \ccscccsosesscsousecsuco-doccsccnsccsccnace 245—251
ἘΗΡΗ ΠΡ (11208 GUS) os aoussscnasesenevapsurebnadesaaccarcacessetrs=c ore sep 251—255
Basil of Caesarea (fl. a. 370.) .... ..... 255—258
Gregory of Nyssa (fl. a. 370.)... fe sess, 208, 259
Ephrem Syrus (fl. &. 370.) ......cccssscsscccescceesees .... 259—261
Macarius of Egypt (8. ἃ. 378.) ..scccccsccoscsssacccccnncssssccdacnsecens 261
ὡς πτι TEI EL etal) Στ, pas wansensUuer cctauneesevescpaxwonanntenseeeas ces 261—264
Jerome (fl. a. 378.) ΠΥ τα .... 264, 265
Theophilus of Alexandria (fl. 8. 385.)...cccsesesececerssseesceeersers 265—267
pee RAGA MIE πὶ ἘΡ5 60.) seen muss aWeee voncansenaadeuaedceaaeatiarrsnnsrsneaean 267—273
Chrysostom (fl. 8. 398.) ........ἁἀὁ.ο. ....ὄ 274—281
Cyril of Alexandria (fl. a. 412.)... ses) 281—283
Isidore of Pelusium (fl. a. 412.)... .... 283—285
Theodoret (fl. 2.423.) ....cresssocessoee ἜΣ 285—290
Fulgentius of Ruspa (fl. a. 507.) ... 290, 291
GRRE POR) (lt Be 90>) i tancemnnanensansnvexnesanensaauabins waerSaesnenenecyr es 291, 292
SeEcTION VI.
Whether Patristical Tradition is the ground upon which our belief in
the inspiration of Scripture must be founded.................... 292-812
Testimony of
PUINESH BEAL ny (dl its SACP) aovanssvesscuss>rodadaanaasaasaecssastewadess sie 293—297
Theophilus of Antiogh {{Π|: 6. 168.) ......ccsnccsnacoeasecsassconsesaes 297, 298
Patian. (fl. a. 172.) ..srecsesseoee Weboanuatonn ncaa ease 298, 299
SCTEANENLTETE (tise AGA.) avacnunssonsterdssccucesasenatecrassuasncsassanteerane 299, 300
Clement of Alexandria (fl. &. 192.) ......csesseseesncsseeesees «++» 300—302
Origen (fl. a. 230.) cvecsescsesesescovscsosses 302—304
Lactantius (fl. 8. 303.) .....cceeeceeeees 304, 305
Eusebius of Cesarea (fl, a. 315.) .. Ho Tae 305
inisey Of ῬΟΙΟΠΙΘΤΉ (Hs ὅς GUL.) ccncnccasscucsuscaqnecsancesccpssescrosens ‘306, 307
COTE τι πε τιν {Ὁ κοι το onncesnasens essen penhuesihsaeXcadeus'ddvoataysaiseb cans 307—311
Chrysostom (fl. a. 398.) ....... aoceccconseeerenenevsccnaqecesssccocaccencce 311—312
; Section VII.
TREE NTU BT cs oo ran πὸ τ πος ον eel Se se cces ee 912. -Θ17
CHAPTER XI.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND HER PRINCI-
PAL DIVINES ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK ,............. d18—5d24
Principal Contents.
ΒΕ ΠΕ ΠΕΣ VOMMAREA The ἀν Res oie σον τ ela’ ne SR tape Sn ,e¥<f, ds 9.9
Testimony of
The Church of England (speaking in her authorized docu-
BADIRES) a tussles daepussiaeasdasabensestedeinmvas sus coua’s dentyss'cscubuaacehocneas 323—364
PASO κεν ΠΤ - 364—379
MUOURIGD 4. cxstsdvancooccdsouts -sccdedesusenssssaxssddivectigvanesarabeseneVtxonec’ 379—392
Bishop Morton ... ἘΣ 392-- “907
ΤΟΙ ELALL “sagnsavenesuddaravceyseataer Ole jauavenes vatgeeme soscecessccgeereoe BOT —402
Vill TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
Archbishop Laud ...ccccesseeseeceeeseeeeaceeeeceneeeceeeneessaueesenenscanes 402—413
JACKSON ....sececcecssceccccrersecsceecsscecenscsecscesescuecacs ... 413—434
Archbishop Usher ....ssccsescssceseeeeeeeeeesseeenees os. 434—446
Bishop Jeremy Taylor 446—471
Bishop Stillingfleet ......... 471—491
Bishop Patrick ......ssscecceeseseeeeseeeeeeewes 491—502
WAtCrland 2... c..cccnccasccossnsascasscccsocencesses +e. 502—512
Bishop Var Mildert ...sccccseeececceeereeceeceesesneeeseeeceeeeeeerseeens 513--521
Remarks on the preceding extracts.........-......-...0-- «-e. O21, 522
Concluding remarks. ... 2... 622+ ῆΨἿἔΤὀ sees ee cee ee ee eee te ee eee ee 522—524.
CHAPTER XII.
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE WHOLE SUBJECT..............-- .. 525—545
Principal Contents.
The way in which the proofs, given in the preceding chapters, of the
groundlessness of the Tractarian system of “ Church-Tradition” and
“ Catholic Consent” have been met ............- isjo(ee sicepaeiee| LOLA
The erroneous views which appear to have led the minds of the i
tators towards the system they have adopted .................. 529—538
The dangerous results which flow from the Tractarian doctrine on the
Rule of faith, beyond the errors more immediately involved in it... 538—545
ADDENDA AND ERRATA...... συ cise orotate Sze Uae 546—548
INDEX OF WORKS OPTED: aic:cers τε os ἐς soie ete.) ees ah iter ν᾿ τ
INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE CITED ............00cceee2++22 9] “001
INDEX/OF MATEERS DISCUSSED τος τ τ τοὶ « osiieeieieistere esters «2+. 565—691
THE
oe DIVINE RULE
&ec. &e.
CHAPTER X.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ON THE SUBJECT OF
THIS WORK.
SECT. I.—PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
In proceeding to review the sentiments of the Fathers on the
subject of this work, I would offer, in the first place, a few
general remarks, that may tend to assist the reader in forming
a right judgment of them.
It is always difficult to give, by a few brief extracts, any
correct notion of the full spirit and force ofa writer’s testimony
to a point like that before us, in which his views are very much
shown by the general tone of his remarks, and the whole course
of his arguments. And it is still more difficult in the present
case, from the misinterpretation to which the works of the
Fathers have been subjected from the Romanists and our
opponents. .
Before I proceed further, therefore, I would caution the
reader against allowing himself to be misled by sentences
taken apart from their context, or phrases used in common by
the Fathers and our opponents, but with a different meaning.
For instance, it is easy to find, in the works of the Τ᾽."
as in those of Protestant authors, an appeal to the writers,that
VOL. {II. B
2 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
preceded them, in confirmation of the orthodoxy of the doctrine
they are inculcating. And these appeals are sometimes most
incorrectly cited as proofs of their having maintained the
pseudo-catholie notion that the Fathers are the authorized inter-
preters of Scripture, and Patristical Tradition a practically
infallible informant ; whereas it will almost invariably be found,
when such passages are examined, that the doctrine has been
placed altogether upon the foundation of Scripture-testimony,
and the appeal to preceding writers in confirmation of it, made
only with the view of showing, that such an exposition of
Scripture was no novelty, but not as if the testimony of a few
ecclesiastical writers could be taken as an infallible expounder
of God’s word, or per se necessary to the right interpretation of
it, on account of its imperfection and obscurity.
Another misinterpretation to which the writings of the
Fathers have been subjected, (to which we have already al-
luded},) and which has been more useful than any other to the
pseudo-catholic cause, is the perversion of the meaning of the
word “Tradition,” as used by the Fathers. The writings of
the Romanists in particular abound with citations from the
Fathers in which the whole force of the passage depends upon
the meaning of this word, and where an examination of the
context shows, that it is Scripture to which the writer is re-
ferring; and thus, not unfrequently, the quotation which
appears the most forcible to a superficial reader, turns out to
be not only no evidence of what it is cited to prove, but an
evidence of precisely the contrary. And, as we have already
seen, our opponents have followed them in this, so that Mr.
Newman has actually quoted a passage of Athanasius in defence
of his views, which is diametrically opposed to them. In the
former part of this work, I have given several passages in proof
of what we are here maintaining, namely, that the word “ Tra-
dition” is frequently used in the Fathers in reference to Scrip-
ture.’ But as the point is of considerable importance, I will
here add some further proofs of it, in order to show its constant
use by them in this sense.
1 See vol. i. pp. 8, 9; 68, 69; 72—74. 2 Vol. i. pp. 72, 73.
3 See vol. i. pp. 8, 9; 68, 69; 72—74.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 3
Thus, Origen says,—“ If any arrogant person chooses to
* slight or despise the declarations of the Apostles, let him look
“to it himself. I for my part think it right to cleave close,
* as to God and our Lord Jesus Christ, so also to his Apostles,
“and to inform myself from the Divine Scriptures according to
“ their own tradition.” +
Thus, also, Pope Felix III. says, “ Observe, disciples of
“ Christ and my children, the traditions which ye have received
“ from the Divine Scriptures.’’*
So Gregory Nyssen (already quoted) says, “It is believed. ...
from the tradition of the Scriptures.??
So Cyril of Jerusalem says, ‘‘ Hold the traditions which ye now
receive,”’* where, as his learned editor, Milles, observes, the word
traditions refers to what he had just set before his hearers from
the Scriptures.
So Cyprian (already quoted) frequently speaks of our Lord’s
words recorded in the Gospels, under the name of “the Do-
minical tradition ;”° and elsewhere, on the question of the
rebaptization of heretics, exhorts (in similar language to the
passage above quoted from him) a return to “ the Evangelical
testimony and the Avpostolical tradition,’® meaning the Gospels
of the Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles.’
1 «Si quis vero arrogantia tumidus Apostolica dicta contemnit aut spernit,
ipse viderit. Mihi autem, sicut Deo et Domino nostro Jesu Christo, ita et
Apostolis ejus adhzrere bonum est, et ex Divinis Scripturis secundum ipsorum
traditionem intelligentiam capere.” Οπτα. In Levit. hom. 7. § 4. Op. ed. Ben.
tom. ii. p. 224.
2 φυλάξατε, Χριστοῦ μαθηταὶ, ἐμοῦ δὲ viol, τὰς παραδόσεις, ἃς παρελάβετε ἀπὸ
τῶν θείων γραφῶν. ἘΈΙΙΧ III. Papa (fi. 483) in Epist. ad Petrum Fullonem
Ep. Antioch. sub fin.; Concil. ed. Labb. et Cossart. Paris. 1671. tom. iv. col.
1069. (ed. Hardouin. ii. 825.)
3 Πεπίστευται ἔκ τε τῆς κοινῆς ὑπολήψεως, καὶ ἐκ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν παραδόσεως.
Grea. Nyss. De anim. et resurr. Op. ed. Paris. 1615. tom. ii. p. 644.
4 Kparetre τὰς παραδόσεις, ἃς νῦν παραλαμβάνετε. CyRILL. Hreros. Catech.
5. § 8. Op. ed. Milles. Oxon. 1703. p. 76. See the note of Milles in loc.
5 « Traditio Dominica.” Cyprian. Ep. ad Cecil. Ep. 63. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon.
1782. P. 2. p. 148.
6 « Quare si rejectis humane contentionis erroribus, ad Evangelicam aucto-
ritatem atque ad Apostolicam traditionem sincera et religiosa fide revertamur,
intelligemus,” ὅθ. CyprRIAN. Ep. ad Jubaianum, circa med. Ep. 73. Op. ead. ed.
P. 2. p. 205.
7 For the use of the word tradition by the Fathers, see also Tren. Adv. heer.
B 2
4 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
The description of the New Testament, occurring in these
words of Cyprian, was one in very common use with the Fathers.
Thus, we find the Bible frequently referred to under the title,
“ The Law, the Prophets, the Evangelists, and the Apostles,” as
by the Author of the Epistle to Diognetus,! Hippolytus,? Gre-
gory of Neocesarea,? Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius,’ Salvian,®
and Hilary.7 So the New Testament is referred to by Origen,®
and Ephrem Syrus,® as “the Evangelical and Apostolical say-
ings,’ by Hilary as “the Evangelical and Apostolical insti-
tutes,”!° and similarly by Gregory of Neoczsarea ;!! just as in
the passages formerly referred to it is called “the Evangelical
and Apostolical traditions.”!2 The Gospels are referred to
lib. iii. c. 21. ed. Mass. p. 216. (ce. 25. p. 256. ed. Grab.) Crem. ALEX. Strom.
pp- 806 and 896. ed. Potter. (Paris. 1641, or Col. 1688. pp. 679 and 762); CyRIxu.
ALEX. De recta fide ad Theodos. tom. v. P. 2. p. 15. ed. Aubert.; ORIGEN. In
Matth. tom. x. § 17. Op. ed. Ben. vol. iii. p. 462.
1 Anon. Epist. ad. Diogn. § 11. Int. Op. Just. Mart. ed. Ben. p. 240.
2 Τὸν νόμον, τοὺς προφήτας, τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων φωνὴν, τοὺς ἀποστόλους.
Hippo. De Antichrist. ὃ 58. Op. ed. Fabric. vol. i. p. 28.
3 Grecor. Nroces. (THauMATURG.) In Annune. Serm. ii. Op. ed. Par. 1622.
p- 19.
4 Οὐχ ἕτερον μὲν ἐν Νόμῳ καὶ Προφήταις, ἕτερον δὲ ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις καὶ ᾿Αποσ-
τόλοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν ἐστι καὶ Td αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγίον τὸ ἐν Παλαιᾷ καὶ Καινῇ Διαθήκῃ
τὰς θείας λαλῆσαν γραφάς. CYRILL. HreRos. Cat. 17. ὃ 3. Op. ed. Milles. Oxon.
1703. p. 243.
5 Οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν Ἐὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ᾿Αποστολικῶν. . . GAAG καὶ ἐκ Νόμου
καὶ Προφητῶν. ἘΡΙΡΗ. Ady. her.; her. 31. ὃ 15. Op. tom. i. pp. 181, 2.--ΞὍτι
Θεὸς εἷς ἡμῖν ἐν Néuw καὶ ἐν Προφήταις καὶ ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις καὶ ἐν ᾿Αποστόλοις, ἐν
Παλαιᾷ καὶ Καινῇ Διαθήκῃ, κεκήρυκται. ID. ib. Exp. fid. Cath. § 18. Op. tom. i.
p- 1101.
δ « Legem, Prophetas, Evangelium et Apostolicas lectiones.” Sanyran. De
Gubern. Dei.’ lib. iii. ed. Baluz. Paris. 1669. p. 45.
7“ Dilatis igitur . . . Evangelicis atque Apostolicis preconiis, omnis in-
terim nobis de Lege et Prophetis adversus impios pugna 510.) Hi~ar. Prior. De
Trin. lib. v. § 6. Op. ed. Ben. col. 858.
8 Τῶν εὐαγγελίων καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν φωνῶν. ORIG. Contr. Cels. lib. iii.
§ 15. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 457.
® «Diem semper adventus Domini predictum Propheticis et Evangelicis atque
Apostolicis vocibus contempleris.” Epur.Syr. De Penit. Op. ed. Rom. 1732
et seq. tom. iii. p. 599.
10 “ Evangelicis atque Apostolicis institutis.’ Har. Pict. De Trin. Lb. iv.
§ 1. Op. ed. Ben. col. 827. See also § 5. col. 829, and lib. vi. § 8. col. 882. Also
Tract. in Psalm. § 23. col. 38.
N“Oray ἀναγινώσκεται τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἢ ἀποστολικὸν, μὴ προσχῆς TH βίβλῳ,
κι 7.A. GREG, Neocms. (THAUMATURG.) In Annune. Serm. ii. p. 19.
12 See vol. i. pp. 72, 73.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 5
by Theophilus of Antioch and Cornelius as “the evangelical
voice ;”! by Epiphanius as “the evangelical witness ;”*? by
Theodoret as “ the evangelical declarations;” * by Gregory Nyssen
as “the evangelical sayings ;”* “the evangelical teaching,” ὃ
“the teaching of the gospel,’’® just as in the passage of Atha-
nasius already referred to they are called “ the evangelical tradi-
tion.””? And, in like manner, the Apostolical Epistles are referred
to by Gregory of Neoczsarea, under the title of “ the Apostolical
teaching.”
And hence we may see the meaning of a passage in Epi-
phanius, (which the Romanists have as usual misrepresented,)
and add another example to the foregoing as to the use of the
word “ Tradition.” Epiphanius, at the close of his work against
heresies, having noticed many usages that were received in the
Church, adds, ‘‘ But as it respects the other mysteries, namely
“ concerning baptism and the more sacred mysteries, they
“ are observed according as the tradition of the Gospel and the
“ Apostles directs ; 5 where the reference is clearly to the New
Testament, and an important testimony is afforded us as to the
source whence Epiphanius considered our instructions for the
celebration of the sacraments should be derived.
These passages may serve to put us on our guard against the
representations of the Romanists and our opponents, as they
clearly show us, that the Fathers have been grievously mis-
1 Ἡ εὐαγγέλιος φωνὴ THEOPH. ANTIOCH. Ad Autol. lib. iii. § 18. Cum
Op. Just. Marz. ed. Ben. 388. (ed. Col. 1686. p. 126.) ‘Sequentes evangeli-
cam vocem dicentem, Beatos esse puros corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt.”
CorNEL. Ep. ad Cypr. ap. Cypr. Epist. 49. ed. Fell. P. 2. p. 93.
2 EvayyeAucijs μαρτυρίας. EprpHan. Adv. her.; in her. 76. Op. tom. i.
. 935.
3 ΕἘὐαγγελικῶν κηρυγμάτων. THEODORET. Her. Fab. lib. v. c. 22. Op. ed.
Schulz. tom. iv. p. 452.
4 Ἐὐαγγελικῶν φωνῶν. GREG. Nyss. Procm. in Cant. Op. ed. 1615. tom. i.
p- 471.
5 Τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς διδασκαλίας. ID. ib. p. 473.
§ Τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διδασκαλίας. Ip. De anim. et resurr. tom. ii. p. 639.
7 See vol. i. pp. 72, 73.
8 Ἡ ἀποστολικὴ διδασκαλία. GREGOR. NEoc#HS. (THAUMATURG.) In Annune.
Serm. ii. Op. ed. 1622. p. 19.
9 Ta δὲ ἄλλα μυστήρια περὶ λουτροῦ καὶ τῶν ἔνδοθεν μυστηρίων, ws ἔχει ἣ
παράδοσις τοῦ τε Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων, οὕτως ἐπιτελεῖται. EPIPH.
Ady. her. in Expos. fid. cath. § 22. Op. tom. i. pp. 1105, 6.
6 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
quoted, and their meaning often altogether perverted. When
the Fathers speak of “ the Apostolical Tradition,” or “the Tra-
dition of the Apostles,” they are almost always referring to the
Scriptures of the Apostles.
And to this we may add, that when they speak of “ the
Tradition of the Fathers,” they are sometimes referring to some-
thing which those Fathers gathered from Scripture. For, thus
speaks Basil; ““ That therefore which our fathers said, that also
“ we say.... But it is not sufficient for us, that this is the tra-
“ dition of the Fathers; for they also followed the mind of
“ Scripture, taking their first principles from those testimonies
“ which we just now placed before you from the-Scripture.””*
And to this other instances might be added.
In short the word ¢radition is often used, not to denote any-
thing which has come down by successional delivery from the
Apostles, but merely as equivalent to the teaching or doctrine
of the persons referred to. Thus, Polycrates speaks of having
observed Easter “according to the tradition of my relations,”
where the word “tradition” is translated by Jerome by the word
teaching or doctrines There are, indeed, few passages of the
Fathers in which, considering the sense usually affixed by the
moderns to the word “ traditions,”’ the meaning of παραδόσεις
would not be more accurately conveyed by translating it doc-
trines or instructions.
I shall now, then, endeavour to show, more particularly, that
on al] the five points in which we have summed up the views of
our opponents,* the weight of Patristical testimony is mcom-
parably in our favour. I say, the weight of Patristical testimony,
as I make no pretensions to the consent of all the Fathers on
1 “Ὅπερ ἔλεγον τοίνυν of πατέρες ἡμῶν, καὶ ἡμεῖς λέγομεν . . . ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐ τοῦτο
ἡμῖν ἐξαρκεῖ, ὅτι τῶν πατέρων ἣ παράδοσις" κἀκεῖνοι yap τῷ βουλήματι τῆς Γρα-
φῆς ἠκολούθησαν, ἐκ τῶν μαρτυριῶν, ἃς μικρῷ πρόσθεν ὑμῖν ἐκ τῆς Γραφῆς παρε-
θέμεθα, τὰς ἀρχὰς λαβόντες. Bastu. (25. De Sp. 8. ο. 7. Op. ed. Ben. tom. iii.
Ρ. 15.
5 Κατὰ παράδοσιν τῶν συγγενῶν μου. Potycor, in ΕΤ5ΕΒ. Hist. Eccl. v. 24.
or in Rouru. Relig. Sacr. vol. i. p. 371. (ed. 2a. 1845. vol. 2. p. 15.)
3 “Secundum doctrinam propinquorum meorum.” See RovutH. Reliq.
Sacr. ib,
4 Which are as follows (as given vol. i. pp. 36, 37) :—
1. That consentient Patristical Tradition, or “ Catholic Consent,” is an unwritten
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 7
these or any other points. And I would remind the reader, that
as to passages in any of those from whom we shall hereafter
quote, in which, in other parts of their works, they have spoken
strongly of the value of the testimony of those who preceded them,
or the necessity of following the doctrine of “the Church,” those
passages must be interpreted in conformity with the views clearly
expressed in the passages we have cited. Such language depends
for its meaning upon the principles of the writers, and is quite
consistent with the maintenance of the Protestant view. All
writers when engaged in controversy (and most of the Patristical
writings that remain to us are of a controversial kind) justly avail
themselves of the testimony of preceding writers in their favor;
and every man holds, that in fundamental points, it is neces-
sary to receive the doctrines maintained by what he considers to
be “the Church.” But the question,—What testimony did they
regard as having authority over the conscience ?—is one which
cannot be determined by such appeals; and for their answer to this
question we appeal to the extracts given from them in this chapter.
And as to any (if there are any of them) that have not always spo-
ken quite consistently with themselves upon the point, that very
inconsistency shows, that our opponents’ view was not a received
doctrine of the early Church; and at least nullifies any state-
ments they may have made, adverse to us ; not to say, that when
word of God, a divine informant in religion, and consequently entitled, as to its
substance, to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures.
2. That such Tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed Rule of
faith and practice. "
3. That it is a necessary part of the divine Rule of faith and practice, on ac-
count of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that
(1) Though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of faith or prac-
tice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture containing, that is, giving hints or
notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary
part of the divine Rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture, and as
giving the full development of many points, some of which are fundamental,
which are but imperfectly developed in Scripture, and
(2) It is an important part of that Rule,as conveying to us various important
divinely-revealed doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture.
4. That it is a necessary part of the divine Rule of faith and practice, because
of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of the fundamental articles, which
makes Scripture insufficient to teach us even the fundamentals of faith and
“practice.
5. That it is only by the testimony of Patristical Tradition that we are assured
of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are canonical, and the genuineness of
what we receive as such.
8 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
we recollect how the works of the Fathers have been exposed to
corruption by those who denied the doctrine for which we con-
tend, the only wonder is, that so many and such clear testi-
monies remain on the subject in our favor.
And as it respects the general character of their views on the
subject, it is admitted by Mr. Newman himself, that while, upon
the supposition of their holding the views he advocates, (which
he takes it for granted they did,) it is difficult to see, why they
should not have made “Tradition” a sufficient informant in
matters of necessary faith, independent of Scripture, yet they
did not do so :} a tolerably clear proof, that he has altogether
misapprehended the mind of the Fathers.
Nor, indeed, is it easy to see, why the early Church, ifit held
the views of our opponents, should have been so careful and
diligent as we find it to have been in multiplying the copies of
the Scriptures, translating them into all languages, and circu-
lating them as the Gospel of our salvation. The Divine Scrip-
ture, Augustine tells us, was diffused far and wide by the various
translations made of it, that it might become known to the
nations to their salvation.
SECT. II.—ON THE TRACTATORS’ DOCTRINE OF CATHOLIC CON-
SENT BEING A DIVINE INFORMANT SUPPLEMENTARY TO AND
INTERPRETATIVE OF SCRIPTURE.
It is obvious that wherever so important a doctrine is held
as that Scripture is but an obscure and imperfect informant
even on the highest points of faith, and that our interpretation
of it must be gathered from the consentient testimony of the
whole Primitive Church as a practically infallible witness of the
oral teaching of the Apostles, we may expect it to be brought
forward in a very direct way, and to occupy a prominent place
in the instructions of those who maintain it. If, then, the
Fathers generally had held this doctrine, we should surely not
? NEwman’s Lect. on Rom. &e. pp. 342, 3.
* “Tnnotesceret gentibus ad salutem.” Aveusr. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. ¢. 5.
Op. tom. iii. col. 21,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 9
be left to gather it by inferences from passages only indirectly
bearing upon it, but have had it distinctly placed before us as a
necessary direction for our guidance. But it is undeniable, that
the Fathers generally have given us no such direction. If they
had, we should not have been sent to Vincent, a monk of Lerins,
as the great authority for this doctrine, but to some earlier and
more estimable writer ; though, by the way, even Vincent himself
(as we shall show presently) is not answerable for all that our
opponents have stretched his rule to mean.
There are, indeed, (as we have already had occasion to observe,)
appeals made by Irenzus, Tertullian and Origen, to the consent
of the Apostolical Churches in favor of certain doctrines; and
that consent they urge as a sufficient testimony to show that
those doctrines were preached by the Apostles. How far such
appeals support our opponents’ cause, we shall consider, when
we come to review the statements of those authors under our
next head, and hope to show, that they-are altogether adequate
for that purpose.
Moreover, it is evident, that some of those who lived near the
times of the Apostles received the reports of individuals as suffi-
cient testimony of the oral tradition of the Apostles on various
points. Thus, for instance, we are referred by Irenzeus to such
reports in proof of the apostolicity of the doctrine he advocated
on the subject of the Millennium. And statements are made by
others on other points, respecting the oral teaching of the
Apostles, grounded upon similar testimony. But it was soon
found, even at that early period, that a ready entrance was thus
afforded into the Church to errors of all kinds. We have already
shown, that even the orthodox Fathers were led into error by
such reports. And the heretics frequently made them the
foundation of their extravagances. It was on this account,
indeed, chiefly, namely from the heretics pleading a private
tradition of this kind in proof of the apostolicity of their errors,
that the early Fathers appealed to the Tradition of the Aposto-
lical Churches in support of the orthodox faith. The Fathers
do not point to this Tradition as anything supplementary to
Scripture, nor ever give the slightest intimation, that the Scrip-
ture needs such Tradition as its interpreter, but, on the contrary,
always refer to Scripture as manifestly and clearly teaching their
10 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
doctrine. They cite that Tradition only as an additional proof
in favor of the orthodox faith in a few of the most elementary
points, to those who pretended a “ Tradition” from the Apostles,
coming to them through certain individuals, in favor of their
errors; and who said (as Irenzus tells us), that without a
knowledge of that Tradition, Scripture could not be rightly
interpreted.
So thought our opponents’ own witnesses Bishop Patrick!
and Bishop Taylor. The words of the latter are so well worth
the consideration of our opponents that I will here subjoin
them.
“ In the first ages of the Church, the Fathers disputing with
“ heretics did oftentimes urge against them the constant and
“ universal Tradition of the Church; and it was for these
“ yeasons—l. Because the heretics denied the Scriptures ....
«2. The heretics did rely upon this topic for advantage, and
* would be tried by Tradition, as hoping because there were in
“ several churches contrary customs, there might be differing
“ doctrines, or they might plausibly be pretended; and there-
* fore the Fathers had reason to urge Tradition, and to wrest it
“from their hands who would fain have used it ill..... To
“such as these there were but two ways of confutation ; one
“ was, which they most insisted upon, that the Holy Scriptures
“ were a perfect Rule of faith and manners, and that there was
“NO NEED OF ANY OTHER TRADITION ; the other, that the tra-
““ ditions which they pretended were false ; and that the contrary
“was the doctrine which all the Churches of God did preach
“ always. Now thus far Tradition was useful to be pleaded ;
“ that is, though the heretics would not admit the doctrine of
“ Christianity as it was consigned in Scripture, yet they might
“be convinced that this was the doctrine of Christianity, be-
“ cause it was also preached by all bishops and confessed by all
* churches.””
In the Catholic Church itself that doctrine which in one age
had been, through such reports, attributed to the Apostles, I
mean the millennial doctrine of Irenzeus and others, was in
another spoken of as the offspring of ignorance and folly.
1 See his “ Discourse about Tradition.”
? Jer. Taytor’s Rule of Conse. ii, 3. 14. Works, (Heber’s ed.) xiii. 116.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. $y
It is evident, then, that many at least of the Fathers, even if
they chose to avail themselves of such reports where they were
consonant with their own views, did not, in the abstract, regard
such testimony as of any authority. Nor, indeed, do the Trac-
tators themselves appear to contend for the authority of “ tradi-
tions ” so derived.
The only testimonies that could be adduced in support of the
doctrine of our opponents, would be such as declared, that in
all important points there was a universal consent among all the
teachers of the Catholic Church, and appealed to such consent
as a “ practically infallible” informant of the oral teaching of
the Apostles.
I shall now, then, proceed to point out some passages in
various of the early Fathers showing, that the doctrine of the
Tractators was not recognised by them. A more stringent
proof of this will be found in the positive statements occurring
under our next head as to the claims of Scripture, but it may
be desirable first to give a few passages showing, that the notion
of catholic consent being a divine informant supplementary to
and interpretative of Scripture, and forming a necessary part of
the Rule of faith even in the highest points, was altogether un-
known to them.!
Justin Martyr. (fl. a. 140.)
Can we suppose, for instance, that Justin Martyr held such
a view, who says, “ There are some, I admitted, of our com-
“ munity (yévovs,) who confess that he [Jesus] is Christ, but
“ affirm that he is a man, born of men; with whom I do not
“ agree, nor should I even if the great majority of those who
“ are of my own religion should say so, since we are commanded
“ by Christ himself to be ruled by, not the doctrines of men,
1 The Tractarian Review, already quoted, of the first edition of this work,
triumphs in the fact that so few citations are given under this head. The reply
is obvious, namely, first, that it was unnecessary to give many, because the
positive statements of the Fathers as to the claims of Scripture quoted in the fol-
lowing sections are a better testimony on the subject ; and, secondly, that we cannot
expect to find statements in the Fathers formally repudiating a course which
they never thought of following.
ἘΦ THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“but those preached by the blessed Prophets and taught by
dm?
OricEN. (fl. a. 230.)
Let us proceed to Origen. We have already noticed the
Creed which he considered himself able to establish by the con-
sent of the Apostolical Churches at that time.” So much, then,
we will leave for the present undisputed. But does this em-
brace all the vital articles of the faith? No; for Origen him-
self was unorthodox as to some of the highest. This Creed,
as it respects any of the questions now at issue in the Church,
is practically useless. And as to anything beyond this, Origen
not only makes no claim for the consent of the various Churches,
but expressly speaks of it as open ground. And in his reply to
Celsus he says, “Celsus remarks, that they [i. 6. the earliest
““ Christians] were all of one mind ; not observing im this, that
“ from the very beginning there were differences among believers
“ respecting the meaning of the books that were believed to be
“ divine.”® And further on, accounting for the variety of sects
among Christians, of which Celsus had complained, he says,
that this arose “from many of the learned among the heathen
“ being desirous of understanding the Christian faith ; from
“ which it followed, that, from their understanding differently
“ the words which were believed by all to be divine, there arose
“ heresies, taking their names from those who were struck with
“the first principles of the word, but were somehow moved by
“‘ some probable reasons to entertain different views of it, one
“ from another.”* Clearly, then, Origen knew nothing of that
traditive interpretation of Scripture, delivered by Catholic con-
sent, which our opponents pretend to find sixteen centuries
later. And as to the state of the Church in Origen’s own time,
' Εἰσί τινες, ὦ φίλοι, ἔλεγον, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν
Χριστὸν εἶναι, ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀποφαινόμενοι" οἷς οὐ συντί-
θεμαι, οὐδ᾽ ἂν πλεῖστοι ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες εἴποιεν" ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἀνθρωπείοις δι-
δάγμασι κεκελεύσμεθα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πείθεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τοῖς διὰ τῶν μα-
καρίων προφητῶν κηρυχθεῖσι καὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ διδαχθεῖσι. Just. Marr. Dial. cum
Tryph. § 48. Op. ed. Ben. pp. 144, 5. (ed. Col. 1686. p. 267.)
? See vol. i. pp. 216 et seq. 3 See vol. i. pp. 294, 295.
4 See vol. i. pp. 294, 295.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 13
he himself tells us, ““ Many of those who profess to believe in
“ Christ, disagree, not only in small points, and those of no
“ moment, but also in important points, and those of the highest
“ moment.”! And this difference of opinion existed among
those who were in the Catholic Church ; for again he says,—
“1 wish that those only who are without the Church were de-
“ ceived ; it would be easy to avoid the seduction. But now
“ they who profess to belong to the Church, are deceived and
“ misled, even on the necessary points; as their dissension is a
“witness. Since even those who are within the Church are
“misled .... It is bad to find any one erring in points of
“ morals ; but I think it is much worse to err in doctrines, and
“ not to hold that doctrine which is agreeable to the most true
“ rule of the Scriptures ..... Every one that is perfect...
“and that has his senses exercised for understanding the
truth, will necessarily, in his inquiries, fall in with many doc-
“ trines opposed to one another, and will hear many professing
“to know the truth, and different traditions respecting it.”*
What then, I ask, would have been Origen’s opinion of the doc-
trine of our opponents, that there was universal consent among
all the teachers of the Catholic Church, in all the important
doctrines of Christianity, for the first four or five centuries ?
JEROME. (fl. a. 378.)
Again, what is the testimony of Jerome? “ While,” saith he,
“ the blood of Christ was yet but recently shed in Judea, it was
“ὁ maintained that the Lord’s body was but an appearance,” ἕο.
And after enumerating several cases of error, he points out, as
other instances, that “ To the angel of Ephesus there is imputed
“ the loss of love. In the angel of the Church of Pergamos the
“ eating of things offered to idols, and the doctrine of the Ni-
* colaitans, are blamed ;” &c.,? showing that he held, that there
were many, even at that time, in the nominal Catholic Church,
involved in serious error. And as to any notion that he could
have maintained the doctrine of our opponents as to the truth
being supported by the catholic consent of the writers of
1 See vol. i. p. 216. 2. See vol. i. p. 407.
5 See vol. i. pp. 406, 407.
14. ᾽ THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
the preceding ages, it is summarily overthrown by his language
respecting the testimony of those writers on the great question
that formed the subject of the Arian controversy. He admits
fully, that their works contain erroneous statements ; and when
asked how he accounts for it, he replies,—-“It may be that
“ they merely erred, or wrote with another meaning, or their
“ writings were gradually corrupted by unskilful copyists ; or
“ certainly before that that meridian demon, Arius, arose in
““ Alexandria, they may have spoken some things innocently and
“ incautiously, and that cannot escape the calumny of perverse
“men.”! He, then, who wrote thus, could not have supposed
that the Catholic Consent of these writers formed part of the
Rule of faith.
AvGusTINE. (fl. a. 396.)
Let us pass on to Augustine. Having stated that to the
Scriptures alone he had learned to give such honour as te sup-
pose the writers of them certainly inerrable, he adds, respecting
all other authors,—“ But others, however distinguished they
“ may be for holiness and learning, I so read as not to think
* anything true, because they thought it to be so, but because
“ they are able to persuade me, either by those canonical au-
“ thors, or by some probable reason, that it is agreeable to the
“ truth.” Now these words are quite irreconcileable with the
notion that Augustine supposed the consent of those writers
formed part of the Rule of faith, and was a practically infal-
lible informant of the oral Tradition of the Apostles.
And, as we have already shown,’ we find the Fathers of the
Nicene and subsequent ages frequently blaming earlier Fathers
of the Catholic Church for unorthodox statements.
Here, then, however strongly the Fathers may sometimes find
it convenient to speak of the testimony of writers that preceded
them, we have at least sufficient evidence, that no such doctrine as
that of our opponents—that the Catholic Consent of all the
teachers of the Primitive Church forms part of the Rule of
faith—was maintained by the early Church.
1 See vol. i. p. 351. 2 See vol. i. p. 268.
3 Vol. i. pp. 265 et seq. See, also, p. 234.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 15
We are far, indeed, from denying, that the Fathers were in
the habit of appealing to those who had preceded them in con-
firmation of the correctness of their doctrines. Such appeals we
ourselves make. Nay, some evidence of the kind might fairly
be required by us for doctrines proposed to us as fundamental,
not from any obscurity or insufficiency in the Scripture-proof,
but from its being impossible to suppose that all who pre-
ceded us were in error in fundamentals. But unless we can show
real catholic consent, the testimony of a few witnesses on the
subject is anything but infallible. Now such catholic consent
the Fathers generally did not pretend to claim. Nor conse-
quently did they put forward the Patristical testimonies to which
they referred as any divine informant, or authoritative witness, or
practically infallible record of the oral teaching of the Apostles.
A remarkable passage in proof of this occurs in a fragment of
a work called “the little Labyrinth,” generally attributed to
Caius, and written in the early part of the third century, against
the heresy of Artemon. In this passage, which we have given
at length m a preceding page,’ it is said,—“ the heretics say, that
* all the antients and the Apostles themselves both received and
“ taught those things which they now affirm, and that the truth
* of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was
* the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter ; but that from the
“ time of his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth was adulterated.
** And the remark would perhaps be probable, but for that, first,
“ the Divine Scriptures opposed them, and that there are writings
“ of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they
“ wrote against the heathen in defence of the truth, and against
“ the heresies of that time. . . . How, therefore, is it possible, that
“ when the doctrine received by the Church was preached so many
“ years ago, all up to the time of Victor should have preached
* such doctrine as they say ?”
Now here (as we have already observed) the claim of the
heretics, that their doctrine was held and preached by the
Apostles and all their earliest followers, is denied, first, because
the Divine Scriptures delivered a different doctrine, and secondly,
because some of the earliest followers of the Apostles had left
1 See vol. i. pp. 225, 226.
16 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
writings in which the contrary was maintained. In a word, the
preposterous claim to Catholic Consent, or the everybody-always-
every-where-agreed-with-me argument, is left with the heretics,
who, as we here see, could even ¢hen venture to make use of 16;
and heresy is refuted first by Scripture, and then Antiquity 15
appealed to in confirmation, to show that what is considered the
orthodox doctrine, the correct interpretation of Scripture, is no
novelty, but has been held by many from the earliest times.
Further, that our opponents’ doctrine on this subject was no
received doctrine of the Church, is evident from the account
given us by Socrates! of the proceedings at the Council of Con-
stantinople in 381. For there we find the person put forward
by the orthodox party as their champion, advising them, as a
matter of prudence, and an expedient method of dealing with
the heretics, to appeal to the writings of the Fathers, and make
them the Judge of the controversy in hand. And the way in
which this proposition was received by Nectarius, the bishop of
Constantinople, and the Emperor, shows that the notion, so far
from being a received doctrine of the Church, had not before
occurred to them.
Moreover, when the appeal is made by the Fathers to those
that preceded them, we find no claim made to the universal
consent of all the teachers of the Catholic Church. The state-
ments of the Fathers above quoted show us, how inconsistent and
untenable such a claim would have been, when there is hardly a
Father who does not, more or less, find fault with some of those
who had preceded him, as involved in some error. Their appeal
was made to those whom they considered most worthy of being
followed. And if in the heat of controversy they may have
sometimes used words that seem to have a wider scope, those
words must be interpreted with a recollection of their own ad-
missions elsewhere.
Let us observe in what way Augustine introduces his reference
to the Fathers in the Pelagian controversy. After having refuted
the Pelagian errors by the testimony of Scripture, he pro-
ceeds to say,— But, since they say, that their enemies have
“ adopted our language from hatred to the truth, &c. . . . when
1 Socrar. Hist. Eccles. lib. vy. ο. 10.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 17
“ rather the Church of Christ, both of the West and the East,
“ has been horror-struck at their profane and novel language ;
“1 think it concerns us, not only to produce the testimony of
“ the sacred canonical Scriptures against them, which we have
“ already sufficiently done, but also to bring forward some testi-
“ monies from the writings of the saints who before our time
“have, with very great honour and renown, expounded those
“ Scriptures ; not that the authority of any disputant is put by
“ us on a level with the canonical] books, just as it cannot be,
“ that the opinion of one catholic is better or more true than that
“ of another catholic, but that those who think that such persons
“ have some ground for what they say, may be admonished, how
“ on these points, before the Pelagians introduced their new and
“ foolish phrases, catholic prelates followed the divine deelara-
“ tions, and may know that the true and antiently established
“ catholic faith is defended by us against the new presumption
“ and destructive error of the Pelagian heretics.”' And he then
proceeds to quote Cyprian and others in defence of his doctrines.
Now this language, as the reader will have observed, 15 altogether
different from that of our opponents.
In short, the mode of arguing adopted by the Fathers was
like that of the Church of England. They said, The Scripture
clearly affirms such and such a doctrine, therefore it is the or-
thodox faith. But to those who denied the correctness of their
interpretation of Scripture, they urged this argument, among
others, to show that it was the true one, namely, that such and
such catholic Fathers had maintained it, and therefore that it
1 « Sed quoniam dicunt, Inimicos suos dicta nostra in veritatis odium susce-
pisse, &. .... cum potius eorum profanas vocum novitates Ecclesia Christi
et occidentalis et orientalis horruerit; ad curam nostram existimo pertinere,
non solum Scripturas sanctas canonicas adversus eos testes adhibere, quod jam
satis fecimus, verum etiam de sanctorum litteris, qui eas ante nos fama cele-
berrima et ingenti gloria tractaverunt, aliqua documenta proferre ; non quo ca-
nonicis libris a nobis ullius disputatoris equetur auctoritas, tamquam omnino non
sit, quod melius seu verius ab aliquo catholico quam ab alio itidem catholico
sentiatur, sed ut admoneantur, qui putant istos aliquid dicere, quemadmodum
de his rebus ante nova istorum vaniloquia catholici antistites eloquia divina
secuti sint; et sciant a nobis rectam et antiquitus fundatam catholicam fidem
adversus recentem Pelagianorum hereticorum prasumtionem perniciemque
defendi.” Avausr. Contr. duas epist. Pelag. lib. iv. c. 8, Op. ed. Ben. tom. x.
col. 480.
VOL. IIT. Cc
18 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
was a doctrine that had been all along held in the Catholic
Church. And they probably held, that, im vital points, a doc-
trine opposed to the teaching of all the remaining testimonies
of the doctors of the earlier Church could hardly be true, and
that the absence of all testimony in favor of a doctrine of any
moment formed ordinarily a strong argument against it; and
therefore they referred to Patristical Tradition in support of the
doctrines they advocated on such points; though even here the
remarks of Basil upon the silence of the preceding Fathers on —
the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Ghost,' show, that the
existence of an absolute testimony in favor of such doctrines
was not always esteemed essential. But as it respects such a
“ catholic consent” as our opponents talk of, and the uses to be
made of it, they evidently recognised nothing of the kind ; still
less did they dream of there being any such Patristical testimony
as could be proposed to all as a divine informant. In fact, many
of them have expressly declared, directly or indirectly, (as we shall
see in the next section,) that the only divine revelation we possess
as that contained in the Scriptures.
The Fathers might say, as we should now, Such and such is
the faith of the Church in fundamental points, and he who does
not embrace that faith is in fundamental error. But this is not
putting forward the dictum of that which we choose to call
“ the Church,” as the ground upon which such doctrines are to
be believed. It is merely an expression of our views, a bearing
witness to what we hold to be the true Church and the true
faith. And such alone is the character of the teaching which it
becomes the Church on earth to offer. She is a witness for the
truth. But never ought she to forget, that the treasure of the
Gospel has been committed to earthen vessels, to those who
are encompassed with infirmity, and that her delivery of the
message is subject to all the drawbacks upon its authority to
which the imperfection of a frail and fallible messenger renders
it justly liable.
The truth of this is more especially apparent, when we recol-
lect, that “the Church” cannot teach as “the Church,” but
only through the agency of individuals. There is searcely any-
thing extant which can be called the teaching of “the Catholic
1 See vol. i. pp. 233, 234.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 19
Church ;” nothing, indeed, that in strictness of speech is entitled
to that character. Because the Catholic Church cannot be re-
presented. Its suffrages never were and never could be collected
on any one point. The utmost that was ever accomplished was
a probable representation of the sentiments of the majority.
The teaching of the Church, therefore, is practically the teaching
of individuals belonging to the Church ; and how uncertain it
is what that teaching may be, even where definite articles of belief
on all the important points of the Christian religion have been
voluntarily signed, has been proved to demonstration by the writ-
ings of our opponents themselves.
SECT. III.—-WHETHER SCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE AND COMPLETE
RULE OF FAITH AND JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES.
In considering the testimony of the Fathers upon this subject,
we need not fear to begin with some of the earliest ; though it is
obvious, that their language respecting it cannot be expected to be
identical with that which they themselves would have used at the
present day. The immediate disciples of the Apostles, for in-
‘stance, may be expected to refer to the oral teaching of the
Apostles, which to them was as authoritative, as much the word
of God, as their writings ; especially when we consider, that the
Scriptures had not then been circulated, in a collected form,
through the Church. But, consequently, any notices from
them, tending to confirm the view which we here advocate, are
proportionably forcible.
Let us observe, then, the following passage of
Ienatius. (fl. a. 101.)
In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, written at the com-
mencement of the second century, he says,—
1 Hence, for instance, Ignatius, of course, considered the instructions given to the
Churches in his Letters as conveying the tradition of the Apostles; and as Eusebius
Says, προὔτρεπέ τε ἀπρὶξ ἔχεσθαι τῆς τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων παραδόσεως, ἣν ὑπὲρ
ἀσφαλείας καὶ ἐγγράφως ἤδη μαρτυρόμενος διατυποῦσθαι ἀναγκαῖον ἡγεῖτο. KusEB.
Hist. Eccl. iii. 86. ed. Reading. p.131. But by such reports of Apostolical teach-
ing, given by individuals, our opponents themselves would refuse to be bound.
c 2
20 THE DOCTRINE, OF THE FATHERS
«1 exhort you that you do nothing out of strife, but accord-
“ ing to the instruction of Christ ; because I have heard of some
“ who say, Unless I find it written in the originals, I will not.
“ believe it to be written in the Gospel. And when I said, It is
“ written, they answered what lay before them in their corrupted
“ copies.” (ᾧ 8. Wake’s transl.)?
Even at this early period, then, and in the presence of those who
were the immediate disciples of the Apostles, the great question
as to any disputed point was, Js it written ὃ For, the animad-
version upon those here alluded to, is not on the ground of their
reference to Scripture, but of their cavilling at well-authenticated
copies, and refusing to yield to anything but the Apostolical
autograph.
From Ignatius, let us pass on to
Porycarp. (fl. a. 108.)
In his Epistle to the Philippians, written in the year 116 or
117, we meet with the following passages: “ These things, my
“brethren, I took not the liberty of myself to write unto you
“ concerning righteousness, but you yourselves before encouraged
1 Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Χριστομαθίαν"
ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ
πιστεύω: καὶ λέγοντος μοῦ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται.
Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, τὰ ἄθηκτα (ἄθικτα) ἀρχεῖα ὃ σταυρὸς αὐτοῦ
καὶ 6 θάνατος, x. T.A. Ianat. Epist. ad Philadelph. §8. Int. Parr. Apost. ed.
Cotel. 1724. tom. ii. p.32. The evident correspondence of the word ἀρχαίοις to the
word ἀρχεῖα, occurring twice in the latter part of this passage, has caused Vossius,
Cotelerius, Smith, and others to suppose, that ἀρχείοις is the true reading ; and this is
the reading in the interpolated copy of these Epistles. The word ἀρχαίοις however
may have the same meaning, for we are told in the lexicon of Suidas that the
word is written both ways,—Apxeia ... . ἢ ἀρχαῖα, ὡς Ἐενοφῶν Ἱστοριῶν H’.
And Cotelerius says, “ ᾿Αρχαῖον pro ἀρχεῖον archivum legitur in Athenzo, Pol-
luce, Suida et Josepho.” There is as little reason, therefore, against translating
both by the word archivum, as by the word antiquus ; the evident correspondence
of the words clearly showing an identity in their intended signification, and the
sense of the sentence appears to me to forbid the latter. I confess, however, I do
not feel satisfied with the above translation of ὅτι πρόκειται, nor with any which
I have yet seen proposed. An account of the various modes of rendering this
passage may be scen in the notes of Dr. Jacobson’s edition of the Patres Aposto-
lici. I should be inclined to translate the passage thus,—“ And when I said, It
ts written, they answered me, It is set forth thus ;” (or, It és in the copies before
us thus ;)—meaning that it was thus se¢ forth in the common copies, but that it
might not be so in the originals ; and therefore that they would not allow the
emphatic word γέγραπται to be used respecting it, till they had seen it in the
original,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 21
“ me to it; for neither can I, nor any other such as I am, come
“up to the wisdom of the blessed and renowned Paul, who
“ being himself in person with those who then lived, did, with
“ all exactness and soundness, teach the word of truth, and being
“ gone from you, wrote an Epistle to you, into which if you look,
“ you will be able to edify yourselves in the faith that has been
“ delivered unto you, which is the mother of us all.” (§3. Wake’s
transl.)*
Again; “ Whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his
“own lusts, and says that there shall neither be any resur-
“ rection nor judgment, he is the firstborn of Satan. Where-
“ fore, leaving the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let
“ us return to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning ;
“‘ watching unto prayer, [1 Pet. 4.7,] and persevering in fast-
“ing; with supplication, beseeching the all-seeing God not to
“ lead us into temptation [Matt. 6.13]; as the Lord hath said,
“The Spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak. [Matt.
“© 26.41.]”? (δ 7. Wake’s transl.)
And again ; “ For I trust that ye are WELL EXERCISED IN THE
Hoxy Scriprurss, and nothing is hid from you.” (ἢ 12.)°
These passages are worth observing, as showing how, even at
that early period, when the oral teaching of the Apostles might
properly be, and no doubt was, referred to by their immediate
disciples, the Scriptures were considered the authoritative expo-
nents of the faith.
1 Ταῦτα, ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐμαυτῷ ἐπιτρέψας, γράφω ὑμῖν ἐπὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης" ἀλλ᾽
ἐπεὶ ὑμεῖς προεπεκαλέσασθέ με. Οὔτε γὰρ ἐγὼ, οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται
κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου: ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν
κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων, ἐδίδαξεν ἀκριβῶς καὶ βεβαίως τὸν περὶ GAn-
θείας λόγον: ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὰς, εἰς ἂς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνηθή-
σεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι εἰς τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν, ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων ὑμῶν.
Potycarp. Ep. ad Philipp. ὃ 3. Inter Parr. Apost. ed. Cotel. 1724. vol. ii.
p- 187,
2*Os ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ λέγῃ μήτε
ἀνάστασιν, μήτε κρίσιν εἶναι, οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστί τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Διὸ ἀπολι-
πόντες τὴν ματαιότητα τῶν πολλῶν, καὶ τὰς ψευδοδιδασκαλίας, ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς
ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον ἐπιστρέψωμεν, νήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχὰς, καὶ προσκαρτε-
ροῦντες νηστείαις, δεήσεσιν αἰτούμενοι τὸν παντεπόπτην Θεὸν, μὴ εἰσενεγκεῖν ἡμᾶς
εἰς πειρασμὸν, καθὼς εἶπεν ὅ Κύριος" Τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἣ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής.
Ip. ib. ὃ 7. ed. ead. vol. ii. pp. 188, 9.
3 “ Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris litteris ; et nihil vos latet.’”’
Ip. ib. § 12. ed. ead. vol. ii. p. 191.
22 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Justin Martyr. (fl. a. 140.)
I proceed to Justin Martyr, of whom we may observe, first,
that in his conference with Trypho the Jew, he makes it a rule
to ground all his statements upon Scripture, and Scripture
only ;! and exhorts Trypho to despise the tradition of his Jewish
teachers, as under that name they palmed their own fancies upon
the world. As these remarks, however, apply only to Jewish
traditions, and not to those of the Christian Church, (though it
is hard to see why one should be secure from error, though the
others were not,) I shall not press them as evidence on our
present subject.
Again, in a passage just quoted, he says,—alluding to a
heterodox doctrine prevailing among some professed Christians
at the time,—‘ With whom I do not agree, nor could agree,
“even though the great majority of those who are of my own
“yeligion should say so; since we are commanded by Christ
‘ himself to be ruled by not the doctrines of men, but those
“ yreached by the blessed prophets, and taught by him.”
p Σ prophets, ΞΟ
Further, as to the question of the fulness of the revelation
made in the Scriptures, we may observe the following passages.
— Those,”’ saith he, ‘ who have left us a relation of all things
that concern our Saviour Jesus Christ have thus taught us.”
Again; ‘ Neither did God ask Adam where he was, as one who
“ knew not, nor Cain where Abel was; but for the purpose of
“ convincing each of them what he was, and that the knowledge
“© of all things might be conveyed to us by their being committed ta
“ writing.” *
1 Κἀγὼ, ἐπειδὴ ἀπό τε τῶν γραφῶν καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, τάς τε ἀποδείξεις καὶ
τὰς ὁμιλίας ποιοῦμαι, ἔλεγον, μὴ ὑπερτίθεσθε, μηδὲ διστάζετε πιστεῦσαι τῷ ἀπε-
ριτμήτῳ ἐμοί. JUSTIN. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. ὃ 28, Op. ed. Bened. Paris.
1742. p. 126. (Ed. Colon. 1686. p. 245.)
2 Ἔτι καὶ mapadototépous δοκοῦντας ἄλλους λόγους ἀκούσετε" μὴ ταράσσεσθε
δὲ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον προθυμότεροι γενόμενοι ἀκροαταὶ καὶ ἐξετασταὶ μένετε, καταφρο-
νοῦντες τῆς παραδόσεως τῶν ὑμετέρων διδασκάλων" ἐπεὶ οὐ τὰ διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὸ
τοῦ προφητικοῦ Πνεύματος ἐλέγχονται νοεῖν δυνάμενοι, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἴδια μᾶλλον δι-
δάσκειν προαιρούμενοι. In. ib. ὃ 58, p. 185. (Ed. Col. p. 256.)
3 Os of ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ TOD Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἐδίδαξαν. Tn. Apolog. Prim. § 33. p. 64. (Ed. Col. Apolog. Sec. p. 75.)
4 Οὐδὲ τῷ Θεῷ εἰς ἄνοιαν ἦν τὸ ἐρωτᾷν τὸν ᾿Αδὰμ, ποῦ ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ τὸν Κάϊν,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 23
Trenzvus (fl. a. 167.)
We now come to an author who is very confidently appealed
to, both by the Romanists and our opponents, as a supporter of
their views, viz., Ireneeus. The claim is made upon the authority
of one or two passages, which need only to be compared with
other parts of the work in which they occur, to show that they
afford no support to the views in defence of which they are
adduced.
“ΒΥ no others,” says Irenzeus, “ have we come to the know-
“ledge of the plan of our salvation, but those through whom
“ the Gospel came to us, which they then preached, but after-
“ wards, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures to
“be THE FOUNDATION AND PILLAR OF OUR FAITH;”! a testi-
mony which one might suppose would be suflicient of itself to
settle the question. But it stands not alone.
After having spoken of the witness borne by Scripture to the
truth of his doctrine respecting God, he says,—‘ Having, there-
“ fore, the truth itself as our rule, and the testimony respecting
“ God placed clearly before us, we ought not to cast away the
“ firm and true knowledge of God,” &c.?
And again ;—“ But we, following the one only true God as
“ our teacher, and taking jus words as our rule of truth, always
“ teach the same all of us on the same points.”®
And again ;—‘‘ Therefore the disciple of the Lord, wishing
“ to proscribe all such things, and to constitute a rule of truth
ποῦ “ABeA; GAN εἰς τὸ ἕκαστον ἐλέγξαι ὁποῖος ἐστι, καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς Thy γνῶσιν πάν-
των διὰ τοῦ ἀναγραφῆναι ἐλθεῖν. Ip. Dialog. cum Tryph. § 99. p. 195. (Ed.
Col. p. 326.)
1 « Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostree cognovimus, quam per eos
per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos: quod quidem tune preconaverunt,
postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum
et columnam fidei nostre futurum.” JTrenmi Ady. Her. lib. iii. c. 1. Op. ed.
Massuet. Paris. 1710. p. 173. (ed. Grab. Oxon. 1702. iii. 1. p. 198.)
2 « Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem, et in aperto positum de Deo
testimonium, non debemus per questionum declinantes in alias atque alias ab-
solutiones ejicere firmam et veram de Deo scientiam.” I. ib. 11, 28, p. 156.
(ii. 47. p. 173.)
3 “ Nos autem unum et solum verum Deum doctorem sequentes, et regulam
veritatis habentes ejus sermones, de iisdem semper eadem dicimus omnes.” Lp,
ib. iv. 35. p. 277. (iv. 69. p. 368.)
24. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“in the Church.... thus commenced the doctrine taught
“in his Gospel,—‘In the beginning was the Word, and the
“Word? ” &e*
And when, after having in his first and second books explained
and shown the absurdity of the doctrines of the heretics whom
he was opposing, he proceeds to prove their opposition to the
doctrine of the Apostles, he professes only to be about to give
that proof from their writings ;? and he manifestly alludes to
the Tradition preserved in the Churches founded by the Apostles,
only for the sake of convincing the heretics with whom he had
to deal, who, he tells us, “ When reproved from the Scriptures,
“ immediately began to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if
“they were not correct, nor of authority, and as if they were
“ ambiguous ; and as if the truth could not be discovered from
“ them, by those who were ignorant of Tradition, FOR THAT THE
“ TRUTH WAS NOT DELIVERED IN WRITING BUT ORALLY.”? To
meet these heretics, therefore, on their own ground, (to the simi-
larity of whose views to those of our opponents, I need hardly
point the attention of the reader,) he introduces incidentally,
and beyond his professed design, the testimony borne by the
creed professed in the various Churches founded by the Apostles,
to the correctness of his doctrine on the points in dispute. So
evident is this, that the learned Romanist, Erasmus, scruples
not to say, that Irenzeus in this work “ fights against a host of
heretics, with the soLE aid of THE Scriprures.’’*
T will add two more passages in proof of this.
“On this account,” he says, “we labour to adduce those
? “Omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus Domini et regulam
veritatis constituere in Ecclesia. . . . sic inchoavit in ea, que est secundum
Evangelium, doctrina.” In. ib. iii. 11. p. 188. (iii. 11. p. 218.)
* « Ex ipsis demonstrabimus Scripturis in libris consequentibus.... Ex
Scripturis divinis probationes apponemus.” In. ib. ii. 35. pp. 170, 1. (ii. 66. pp.
194, 5.) “In hoe tertio ex Seripturis inferemus ostensiones.” iii. Pref. p. 173.
(p. 198.)
3 “ Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum
Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie
sint dicta, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant Tradi-
tionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam yocem.” Ib. ib.
iii. 2. p. 174. (pp. 199, 200.)
* Solis Scripturarum presidiis pugnat adversus catervam hereticorum.”
ERAsMI Preef. in Iren, Vide ed. Mass. Append. p. 2.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 25
“‘ proofs which are derived from the Scriptures, that confuting
“ them by the very words of God, we may, as far as is in our
* power, drive them from their enormous blasphemy.” }
And again ;—“ Using those proofs which are from the Scrip-
“ tures, you may easily overturn, as we have demonstrated, all
“ those heretical notions which were afterwards invented.” ”
I add below some further references to passages which may
show the reader how constant was this reference to Scripture as
the Rule of faith.’
And, when reading his works, we must observe, that he, like
the rest of the Fathers, sometimes uses the phrase “ the Tradition
of the Apostles” with reference to their writings.‘
But our opponents will say, Look at those other passages to
which you have just alluded, in which he so clearly directs us to
the Tradition preserved in the Church.
We have no hesitation in accepting the challenge, and fear
not to direct the reader’s attention to those passages. There is
nothing in them which, in a writer of the second century, occa-
sions us any surprise, or leads us to conclude, that had Irenzeus
lived in our day, he would have taken any other view of our pre-
sent subject, than that which we have taken; and which, in
other passages, he has himself sanctioned. I shall now, without
any intentional reserve, quote those passages that may be sup-
posed to oppose our view.
We have already observed, that his professed object, in his
1 « Propter hoe enim et laboramus eas, que sunt ex Scripturis, adhibere osten-
siones; ut ipsis sermonibus confutantes eos, quantum in nobis est, cohibeamus
eos a grandi blasphemia.” Ib. ib. iv. 34. p. 276. (iv. 68. p. 367.)
2 «<Utens etiam his ostensionibus, que sunt ex Scripturis, facile evertis, quem-
admodum demonstravimus, omnes eas, qux postea afficte sunt, hereticorum
sententias.” Ib. ib. v. 14. p. 811. (Ὁ. 422.)
3 “Ὅσα τε κεῖται ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ἀναπτύσσειν. i. 10. p. 51. (i. 4. p. 48.) “ Si
Scripturas cognovissent, et a veritate docti essent, scirent,” &c. ii. 13. p. 130.
(ii. 16. p. 136.) “ Ex Dominicis Scripturis ostendimus,” &e. ii. 30. p. 162. (ii. 54.
pp- 182, 3.) ‘‘ Revertamur ad eam que est ex Scripturis ostensionem.” iii. 5. p. 179.
(p. 206.) “ Ex ipsis Scripturis ostenditur.” iii. 11. p. 192. (p. 224.) “ Nobis conlabo-
rantibus his ostensionibus que ex Scripturis sunt.” iii. 12. p. 197. (p. 230.) “Ex
Scripturis demonstravimus.”’ iii. 19. p. 212. (iii. 21. p. 249.) “ Quando ex ipsis
Scripturis arguantur a nobis .... Quee secundum nos est fides, manifestam osten-
sionem habens ex his Scripturis.’’ iii. 21. p. 216. (iii, 25. p. 256.)
4 “ Apostolorum traditioni. Etenim Petrus et Joannes et Matthzus et Paulus
et reliqui deinceps,” &c. Lib. iii. c. 21. p. 216. (iii. 25. p. 256.)
26 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
third and following books, is to refute the heretics whom he was
opposing from Scripture. But seeing, as he tells us in the com-
mencement of his third book, that these heretics, when convicted
from Scripture, accused the Scriptures of bemg incorrect and
ambiguous; and that the truth could not be found out from
them, by those who were ignorant of Tradition ;* he, on that
account, and in order to bring an additional confutation of their
errors from the source to which they professed to defer, refers
them to Tradition, viz., “that Tradition which was from the
‘< Apostles, and was preserved in the Churches by the succession
“ of Presbyters ;” which Tradition, it seems, they opposed also ;
and when thus driven to their last shift, boldly said, that they
were wiser than the Apostles.? ‘“ Wherefore,’ says Irenzus,
“ we must oppose them in all ways ; if by any means confound-
“ing any of them by our refutation of their errors, we can
“induce them to turn and confess the truth. For if it is not
“easy for the mind, caught by error, to repent, yet it is not
“ impossible for it to avoid error, when the truth is placed by
“ the side of it.” And then, postponing for the moment his
Scriptural demonstration, that he may bring forward the evi-
dence derived from Tradition, in order that he may oppose the
heretics “in all ways,” he adds,—* Therefore it is open to all
‘who wish to see the truth, to behold in every Church that
“ Tradition of the Apostles which was published throughout the
‘“‘ whole world ; and we can enumerate those who were appointed
‘ bishops in the Churches by the Apostles, and their successors
“ even to our times, who have neither taught nor known any-
‘ thing of the kind, such as these persons dream of.” *
And then, having referred to Rome as at that time one of
the principal of the Apostolical Churches, he reminds us, that
1 See note 8 p. 24 above.
2 « Dicentes se non solum Presbyteris, sed etiam Apostolis exsistentes sapien-
tiores.” In. ib. iii. 2. p. 175. (p. 200.)
3 “ Quapropter undique resistendum est illis, si quos ex his retusione confun-
dentes, ad conversionem veritatis adducere possimus. Etenim si non facile est ab
crrore apprehensam resipiscere animam, sed non omnimodo impossibile est errorem
effugere, apposita veritate.” In. ib. iii. 2. p. 175. (p. 200.)
* “Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni
Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre; et habemus annumerare
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 27
Clement has given us, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, “ the
“ Tradition which he had lately received from the Apostles, an-
“ nouncing one God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, the
“former of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abra-
“ham, who led the people out of Egypt, who conversed with
“ Moses, who ordained the law, and sent the Prophets, who
“ hath prepared fire for the devil and his angels. They who
“ will, may learn from the Epistle itself, that He was proclaimed
“ by the Churches to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
“ and may understand the Apostolical Tradition of the Church,
“since this Epistle is more antient than those who now teach
“ falsehoods, and feign that there is another God above the
“ Demiurgus and Maker of all those things which exist.” Ὁ
And then, having proceeded to give the succession from
Clement to his own time, he adds, “ By this ordination and
“ succession the Tradition which is in the Church from the
** Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, hath come down
“even to us. And this is a full proof that there is one and the
“same lifegiving faith, which, derived from the Apostles, is still
“ preserved in the Church, and delivered in truth.”.... “And
“ Polycarp always taught these things, which he had learned
“ from the Apostles, which also the Church delivers, and which
“alone are true. All the Churches in Asia bear witness to
“ these things, and those who have succeeded to Polycarp up
“ to this time.””?
eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum
usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur.”
I. ib. iii. p. 175. (p. 200.)
1<*Hy νεωστὶ amd τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων παράδοσιν εἰλήφει, annunciantem unum
Deum omnipotentem, factorem cceli et terre, plasmatorem hominis, qui induxerit
cataclysmum, et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Hgypti,
qui colloquutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit, et Prophetas miserit, qui ignem
preparaverit diabolo et angelis ejus. Hune Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi
ab Ecelesiis annunciari, ex ipsa Scriptura, qui velint, discere possunt, et Apo-
stolicam Ecclesie Traditionem intelligere, cum sit vetustior Epistola his qui nune
falso docent, et alterum Deum super Demiurgum et Factorem horum omnium,
quz sunt, commentiuntur.’’ In. ib. iii. 3. p.176. (p. 202.)
2 τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει, καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ ἥτε ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
παράδοσις, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. Et est plenissima
hze ostensio, unam-et eamdem vivificatricem fidem esse, que in Ecclesia ab
Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate..... Ταῦτα διδάξας
28 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
The reader will not fail to observe, in the above notice of the
Tradition to which Irenzeus refers, as having been given by
Clement, wHat THAT TRADITION Is, and how utterly useless it
is to those who are appealing to Tradition as something supple-
mentary to Scripture, or even with reference to any of the more
modern controversies of the Church. Z
The same remark applies to the passage I am now about to
quote.
“Since, therefore,” he says, “there are such proofs, it is not
“ right yet to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to
“ take from the Church, since the Apostles fully treasured up
“in it, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to the
“ truth, that every one who wished may take from it the water
“ of life. For this is the door of life ; but all the rest are thieves
“and robbers.... But what if the Apostles had not left the
“‘ Scriptures to us? Would it not have behoved us to follow
“the order of the Tradition which they delivered to those to
“whom they committed the Churches? Which rule many
“ barbarous nations, of those who believe in Christ, follow,
“ having salvation written, without paper and ink, by the Spirit
“in their hearts, and diligently keeping the old Tradition ; be-
“ hieving in one God, maker of heaven and earth, and of all
“ things which are in them, through Jesus Christ, the Son of
“ God; who, from his extraordinary love for his creature, con-
“ descended to be born of a virgin, himself uniting man to God,
“through himself, and suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising
“ again, and being received up in splendour, will come in glory
“as the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those
“‘ who are condemned, and send into eternal fire the corrupters
“ of the truth, and the despisers of his Father and his advent.
“They who have believed this faith without written testimony,
“are, as far as regards our language, barbarians; but, as it re-
“ gards sentiment, and custom, and conversation, are, through
“ their faith, extraordinarily wise, and please God, living in the
ἀεὶ [1. 6. Πολύκαρπος], ἃ kal παρὰ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ἔμαθεν, ἃ καὶ ἡ Ἐκκλησία πα-
ραδίδωσιν, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ. Μαρτυροῦσιν τούτοις αἱ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν
ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι, καὶ οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι τὸν Πολύκαρπον. Ip. ib, iii. 3.
pp. 176, 7. (p. 208.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 29
“ exercise of all justice, and chastity, and wisdom. To whom if
“ any one should announce those things which the heretics have
“ invented, speaking to them in their own language, they would
“immediately stop their ears and fly far away, not enduring to
“ hear such blasphemous discourse. Thus, through that antient
“ Tradition of the Apostles, they do not admit into their minds a
“ thought of any of the monstrous doctrines of those hereties.’’!
These are the passages usually adduced from Ireneus in
support of the authority of Tradition; and though there are
some others (which I have referred to below”) im which the
Church is spoken of as the depositary of the Tradition of the
Apostles, the above will, I suppose, be allowed to be as strong
in favor of the authority of the Tradition preserved in the
Church as any that can be adduced from his writings.
From these passages it certainly follows, that Irenzus
held, that in the Churches founded by the Apostles there was
preserved ¢o his day a correct tradition of certain fundamental
1 “Tante igitur ostensiones cum sint, non oportet adhuc querere apud alios
veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere; cum Apostoli, quasi in depo-
sitorium dives, plenissime in eam contulerint omnia que sint veritatis: uti omnis,
quicumque velit, sumat ex ea potum vite. Heec est enim vite introitus; omnes
autem reliquifures sunt et latrones. Propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos ;
quz autem sunt Eccl@siz, cum summa diligentia diligere, et apprehendere veri-
tatis traditionem. Quid enim? Εὖ si de aliqua modica quiestione disceptatio
esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli
conversati sunt, et ab eis de presenti queestione sumere quod certum et re liqui-
dum est ? Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis,
nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committe-
bant Ecclesias? Cui ordinationi assentiunt multe gentes barbarorum, eorum qui
in Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in
cordibus suis salutem, et veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes; in unum
Deum credentes fabricatorem cceli et terre, Kc... .. Hance fidem qui sine literis
crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt: quantum autem ad
sententiam, et consuetudinem, et conversationem, propter fidem perquam sapien-
tissimi sunt, et placent Deo, conversantes in omni justitia et castitate et sapientia.
Quibus si aliquis annunciaverit ea que ab hereticis adinventa sunt, proprio ser-
mone eorum colloquens, statim concludentes aures, longo longius fugient, ne audire
quidem sustinentes blasphemum colloquium. Sic per illam veterem Apostolorum
traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem mentis admittunt, quodeumque eorum
portentiloquium est.” Ib. ib. iii. 4. p. 178. (p. 206.)
2 See lib. iii. 24. pp. 222, 3. (iii. 40. p. 266.); iv. 26. pp. 261—3. Civ. 48—45.
pp- 343—5.); iv. 32. p. 270. (iv. 52. p. 355.); iv. 33. p. 272. (iv. 62, 63. pp.
360, 1.) ; v. 20. p. 317. (v. 20. pp. 430, 1.)
30 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
truths orally delivered to them by the Apostles, handed down to
that time through the succession of the pastors of those Churches,
and that this was an independent proof at that time of the
truth of certain doctrines against the heretics he was opposing.
Now,—to defer for a moment the consideration whether those
doctrines at all affect any of the controversies of the present
day—let me ask, What is the use of this fact to us? Does it
follow from it, that we can reason in the same way ? Obviously
not. The principle applied by Irenzeus is not applicable at the
present day. He made these observations when the Church
bore a totally different aspect ; and therefore to use the name of
Trenzeus in defence of the authority of Tradition in the present
day, from his having made this appeal to the concurrent testi-
mony of the Apostolical Churches in his own day, is to put
forward a very false claim to confidence. He appeals to a fact
which might then be verified ; but this is anything but evidence,
that, had he lived sixteen centuries later, he would have con-
sidered the testimony of a few antient authors as to the Tradi-
tion preserved in their time m the Apostolical Churches, suffi-
cient to clothe what they delivered as such with the authority of
a divine informant. The present controversy may teach us the
absurdity of such a notion; for even with respect to our own
Church, with her written Confessions, and varied documents
of appeal, we and our opponents are directly opposed to each
other, as to the fact of what her views are on several important
points,
Further ; he makes no appeal to that Tradition for more than
an enunciation of a few prime articles of the Christian faith,
which, in the fullest form in which he has given it, we have
quoted in a former page ;' and which embraces nothing more
than a few leading facts, such as the Incarnation, Resurrection,
future Judgment, &e. never questioned in the Christian Church
since the earliest ages. His appeal, therefore, goes not far
enough to make it of any real use to our opponents, for however
useful it might be against the imaginary deities of Valentinus,
or such like absurdities, as to any of the points for which our
opponents want it, it will be of no avail; not to say, that his
1 See vol. i. pp. 111, 112, and 139, 140.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 31
affirmation of the consent of all the Apostolical churches is far
from being a sufficient proof of it.
The Tractators say, that Irenzeus himself tells us, that if we
had not Scripture we must follow Tradition. True, he thus
spoke to those of his own time as it respected a few of the prime
facts of the Christian faith. But it does not follow that he would
have said so to the present generation. Still less does it follow,
that he would have recommended those who have Scripture to
follow Tradition. The very fact that the truths of the Gospel were
so carefully recorded in writing, and that the earliest heralds of
it took such care to have the Gospels transcribed, and leave them
with their new converts, (as Eusebius tells us was the case,!)
shows that Tradition was not considered a safe mode of transmit-
ting doctrines. We deny not, that God might have preserved his
Church from error as easily without as with the Scriptures, but
so he could under any circumstances.
And still further, Irenzeus does not refer to this Tradition as
containing anything beyond what is in the Scriptures, but only
as an additional argument that his doctrine was true; for the
sake of those who, when convicted of error by the Scriptures,
accused the Scriptures of imperfection and ambiguity. His
opponents, when referred to Scripture, replied, that this was not
to be considered a full representation of what the Apostles had
delivered, and could not be understood but by a reference to
what Tradition had delivered of the oral teaching of the Apostles.
To which Irenzeus replies, Let us then go to the Apostolical
Churches, to see what they preach ; for, you must admit, that
they are the most likely depositaries of the oral teaching of the
Apostles, and seeing that they are unanimously against you,
you are refuted on your own ground. And think not to urge,
that they have declined from the true faith, for we can tell you
who all their bishops have been, from the times of the Apostles,
and defy you to challenge any one of them as having corrupted
the faith or preached your doctrines.”
1 Koses. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 37. ed. Reading. 1720. p. 133.
5. So far Episcopal Succession in a Church may afford us a useful argument in
disproof of corruption of doctrine in that Church, i. e. when all the links in the
32 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Nay, as we shall now. proceed to show, he clearly sets forth
Scripture as containing fully αἰ the Christian faith.
Thus, in a passage just quoted, he tells us, that what the in-
spired authors preached, tHaT they afterwards, by the will of God,
delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar
of our faith. And he speaks of “the most full statements of
the Scriptures, admitting neither addition nor subtraction.” *
Holy Scripture, therefore, delivers the faith, not imperfectly and
partially, but fully. And if we are unable to explain all things
in the Scriptures, “we ought to leave such things with God
“ who made us, knowing well that the Scriptures are perfect as
“ having been uttered by the Word of God and his Spirit; but
“* we, in proportion as we are inferior and far removed from the
“ Word of God and his Spirit, so far we lack the knowledge of
*‘ his mysteries. And it is not wonderful, if, in spiritual and
“ heavenly things, and those things which have to be revealed,
“this should be the case.... and we leave those things with
ς God.” 3
Far from supposing that the faith is imperfectly delivered in
the Scriptures, and that the Church is in possession of a sup-
plementary revelation, he warns us to recollect, that the Serip-
tures are a perfect revelation of the Christian faith, and that so
much as we cannot understand in the Scriptures we must leave
with God.
And when about to refute the heretics from the Apostolical
Scriptures, he says, that, considering their various errors, “ we
“ hold it necessary to produce the whole doctrine of the Apostles
“ concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, and show that they held no
chain can be pointed out, and none accused of error. But how far this will
sanction the notions of our opponents on the value of that Succession, is worth their
consideration.
1 See note }, p. 23 above.
2 “Que pervenit usque ad nos, custoditione sine fictione, Scripturarum tractatio
plenissima, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens.” IrEn. Adv. her.
iv. 33. ed. Mass. p. 272. (ed. Grab. iv. 63. p. 361.)
% « Cedere autem hee talia debemus Deo, qui et nos fecit, rectissime scientes,
quia Scripture: quidem perfectz sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictz ;
nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a Verbo Dei et Spiritu
ejus, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum ejus indigemus. Et non est mirum,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 33
* such notion respecting him ;”! and that whole doctrine he then
proceeds to derive from the Scriptures.
He tells us, also, that “ the precepts of a perfect life” are
delivered “in both Testaments,’ so that the Holy Scriptures
of each Testament are sufficient to reveal that portion of Divine
truth which God intended for those who possessed them under
each. And the exposition of the doctrine of the Apostles given
by the true Church is “ according to the Scriptures.”’®
And he says, that when in his youth he heard Polycarp
relating what he had heard from John and others, who had seen
the Lord, of his miracles and doctrine, all things that he men-
tioned were “agreeable to the Scriptures ;”’* which testimony,
however it may be explained away by those who are desirous of
doing so, is, notwithstanding, not a little in favor of the view
for which we are contending.
And he speaks of the Valentinians as persons who in relying
upon traditions not delivered in the Scriptures were attempting
to make ropes of sand.*
And hence he says, “If any one should ask, what God did
* before he made the world, we reply, that the answer to that
“vests with God. For, that this world was made perfect by
* God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us,
“ but what God did before this, no Scripture manifests. There-
« fore the answer to this rests with God.” ®
si in spiritalibus et ccelestibus, et in his que habent revelari, hoc patimur nos....
et Deo hec ipsa committimus.” In. ib. ii. 28. p. 156. (ii. 47. p. 173.)
1 « Necesse habemus, universam Apostolorum de Domino nostro Jesu Christo
sententiam adhibere, et ostendere, eos non solum nihil tale sensisse de eo, verum
amplius,” ἄς. In. ib. iii. 16. p. 204. (iii. 17. p. 238.)
2 « Consummate enim vite pracepta in utroque Testamento cum sint eadem,
eumdem ostenderunt Deum.” I). ib. iv. 12. p. 241. (iv. 26. p. 312.)
3 “Secundum Scripturas expositio.” In. ib. iv. 33. p. 272. (iv. 63. p. 361.)
4 ᾿Απήγγελλε πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς Γραφαῖς. Fragm. (ex Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
v. 20.) ed. Mass. p. 340. (ed. Grab. p. 464.)
5 Ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες, καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον, ἐξ ἄμμου σχοινία πλέκειν
ἐπιτηδεύοντες. Adv. her. i. 8. p. 86. (i. 1. 8 15. p. 35.)
6 “Ut puta, si quis interroget; Antequam mundum faceret Deus, quid agebat ?
dicimus quoniam ista responsio subjacet Deo. Quoniam autem mundus hie factus
est apotelestos a Deo, temporale initium accipiens, Scripture nos docent; quid
autem ante hoc Deus sit operatus, nulla Scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo hae
responsio Deo.” Ib. ii. 28. p. 157. (ii. 47. p. 175.)
VOL. 111. D
94. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
And again,—“ We have learned from the Scriptures, that
“ God is supreme over all; but whence or how he sent it fi. 6.
ἐς the substance of the Word] forth, neither hath any Scripture
“ explained, nor does it become us to conjecture.”! He must
have added, “nor Tradition revealed,” had he held the views of
our opponents.
In conclusion, then, we may remark, that even if Irenzeus
supposed himself to know anythmg of Apostolical teaching,
through the reports of the Asian presbyters, or otherwise, beyond
what was in Scripture, he makes such “Tradition” no part of
the Rule of faith for Christians generally. At that early period,
many might speak with respect of such reports of Apostolical
teaching, who did not set them down as indubitable divine informants,
and forming part of the Rule of faith to mankind.
Astertus Urpanvs. (fl. a. 188.)
In a work against the Montanists written by a contemporary
author, probably Asterius Urbanus, of which a fragment is pre-
served to us by Eusebius, we have a very remarkable evidence
of the opinion of the early Church as to the complete perfection
of Scripture, and the uniqueness of its character as a divine
informant.
This author having been requested (as he tells us) to write a
work against Montanism, he remained for some time doubtful
what to do; “not [he adds] through any doubt of my being
“able to refute falsehood, and bear witness to the truth; but
“ from being fearful and cautious, lest by any means I should
‘“appear to some to write or determine anything beyond the
“word of the New Covenant of the Gospel, which must not be
“added to nor diminished by him who has resolved to order his
“ life according to the Gospel itself.’’
1 “Didicimus enim ex Scripturis principatum tenere super omnia Deum.
Unde autem vel quemadmodum emisit eam, neque Scriptura aliqua exposuit,
neque nos phantasmari oportet.” Ib. ii. 28. p. 158. (ii. 49. p. 177.)
" Οὐκ ἀπορίᾳ τοῦ δύνασθαι ἐλέγχειν μὲν τὸ ψεῦδος, μαρτυρεῖν δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ"
δεδιὼς δὲ καὶ ἐξευλαβούμενος, μή πη δόξω τισὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι
τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ' ᾧ μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτ᾽ ἀφελεῖν
δυνατὸν, τῷ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον αὐτὸ πολιτεύεσθαι προῃρημένῳ.: ASTERIUS
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 35
How totally different this language from that of one who
possessed another divine informant by the successional delivery
of the oral teaching of the Apostles, and had in that Tradition
a full development of doctrines of which Scripture contained
only “notices !”? And yet this is the language of one who lived
only about a century after the times of the Apostles.
TERTULLIAN. (fl. a. 192.)
Next in importance to the testimony of Irenzeus is that of
Tertullian, and their views on our present subject appear to be
precisely the same.
In considering his testimony we shall follow the same course
as in the case of Irenzeus; we shall notice first those passages
that support the view we have been maintaining upon the points
under discussion, and then consider those which are likely to be
referred to as adverse to it.
Is, then, Scripture the sole authoritative Rule of faith with
Tertullian ?
The following passages will show how frequently it is referred
to by him as the authoritative Rule of faith, (not indeed under
that name, because he uses that term more particularly for the
creed established by the consent of the Apostolical Churches,
but as being what that title signifies with us,) and we shall show
hereafter, what were the only exceptions he would have made
against its being regarded as the sole authoritative Rule of faith.
In his Treatise, then, “ Against Hermogenes,” he distinctly
calls it “the rule of truth;”! and elsewhere he says of a doc-
trine in question, “ Nothing is certain respecting it, because the
Scripture does not declare it.” And in his Treatise “ Against
Praxeas,” he says,—“ You ought to prove this as clearly from
the Scriptures as we prove that He made his Word his Son.’’?
URBANUS in Fragm. op. Ady. Montanist. in Evsrprt Hist. Eccles. lib. v. 6. 16.
(ed. Reading. vol. i. p. 228.)
1 “Veritatis regula prior que etiam futuras hereses prenuntiavit,” &e. TEr-
TULLIAN. Adv. Hermog. c. 1. Op. ed. Paris. 1664. fol. p. 233.
2 «Nihil de eo constat, quia Scriptura non exhibet.” Ip. De carne Christi,
c. 6. p. 312. See also the immediately preceding context, “Si non probant, guia
nec scriptum est, nec,” ἄς.
3 ἐς Probare autem tam aperte debebis ex Scripturis, quam nos probamus illum
sibi filium fecisse sermonem suum.” Ip. Ady. Prax. ο. 11. p. 505.
vp 2
36 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
And elsewhere he urges the refutation of error by “ referring
the points in dispute to the Scriptures of God.”?
Nay, in his Treatise “ Against Hermogenes,” he says plainly,
“ That all things were made of some subjacent matter, 1 have
“ nowhere as yet read. Let the shop of Hermogenes show that
“ it is written. If it is not written, let him fear that woe that
“is destined for those who add to or take from Scripture.”
And so he says elsewhere,—“ Take from the heretics the prin-
“ciples they hold in common with the heathen, so that they
“ may be left to prove their points from the Scriptures alone, and
“ they will not be able to stand.’’*
And hence in his Treatise “On preescription of heretics,”
he calls the Scriptures “the documents of the doctrme [of
religion |.”’4
And, in a word, throughout all his Treatises, with the few ex-
ceptions which shall be hereafter noted, he refers to the Serip-
tures alone for the proof of the doctrines of religion ; and he
does so, not as Mr. Newman does, who would have us suppose
that it would be no proof unless Tradition had previously de-
livered the doctrine to us, that is, in other words, that it is no
proof at all, but as a real proof speaking to the common sense of
every man.
Moreover, that Scripture contains all the points of faith be-
longing to the Christian religion, we have these testimonies.
“1 adore,” he says, “ the fuiness of Scripture, which manifests
“ to me both the Creator and his works. But in the Gospel I
* find discourse very abundantly serving as the minister and
‘“‘ witness of the Creator. But that all things were made of
1 “Urgemur et communes sententias ab argumentationibus philosophorum
liberare et communes argumentationes a sententiis eorum separare, revocando
questiones ad Dei literas.” Tp. De anima, ec. 2. p. 265.
? Ip. Ady, Hermog. ο. 22. p. 241, The passage occurs in a following note.
8 « Aufer denique hereticis que cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de Seripturis solis
queestiones suas sistant, et stare non poterunt.” In, De resurr. carn. ¢. 3. p- 327.
That the arguments of the hereties from Scripture may be refuted from Seripture,
he also intimates, ib. c. ult. p. 365.“ Pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis
[i. e. hwresibus] videntur subministrasse, οὐ ipsas quidem iisdem litteris revin-
cibiles.”
‘ Ip. De Prescript, heret. ς, 38. The passage is given in a following note.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 37
** some subjacent matter, I have nowhere as yet read. Let the
“shop of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not
“ written, let him fear that woe that is destined for those who
* add to or take from Scripture.”’!
This testimony is surely plain and distinct. The cavil of the
Romanists that it applies only to one particular article is too
absurd to need refutation. The latter part of the passage in
particular is so utterly irreconcileable with such a notion, that
no impartial reader could entertain it for a moment.
Again, in his Treatise “On prescription of heretics,” he
says, speaking of the Church of Rome, “ She joins the Law and
** the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles,
“ and THENCE she draws the faith.” * In those writings, then,
* the faith” is to be found; and in another part of the same
Treatise is a passage strongly, though indirectly, showing his
mind in this matter. “The heretics,” he says, “to show the
“ ignorance of the Apostles, bring forward the fact, that Peter
* and they that were with him were blamed by Paul.... But
** we might here say to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles,
“ you have fitst to show, who that Paul was, both what he was
“ before he was an Apostle, and how he was an Apostle.... But
“ they may believe forsooth without the Scriptures, that they may
* believe contrary to the Scriptures.”*
1 « Adoro Scripture plenitudinem, qua [‘ que alii, teste Junio.” Semler] mihi
et factorem manifestat et facta. In evangelio vero amplius et ministrum atque
arbitrum rectoris [factoris, MS. ap. Rigalt.] invenio sermonem. An autem de
aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia, nusquam adhue legi. Scriptum esse
doceat Hermogenis officina. Si non est seriptum, timeat ve illud adjicientibus
aut detrahentibus destinatum.” Ip. Adv. Hermog. c. 22. p. 241. See also his
reference to Scripture in c, 33 of same Treatise, p. 245; and, De carne Christi,
c. 7. p. 312.
2 «“ Legem et prophetas cum Evangelicis et Apostolicis litteris miscet, et inde
potat fidem.” Ip. De Prescr. heret.c. 36. p. 215. A passage implying the same
occurs, according to the text of Pamelius, in ce, 44 of this Treatise, “Si vero
memores Dominicarum et Apostolicarum Scripturarum et denuntiationum in fide
integra steterint,” &e. The words “Scripturarum et” are omitted in the subse~
quent editions of Rigaltius and Priorius, and without notice.
3 « Proponunt ergo ad suggillandam ignorantiam aliquam Apostolorum, quod
Petrus et qui cum eo reprehensi sint a Paulo.... Possumus et hic Acta Aposto-
lorum repudiantibus dicere, Prius est uti ostendatis, quis iste Paulus, et quid ante
Apostolum, et quomodo Apostolus....Sed credant sine Scripturis, ut credant
adversus Scripturas.” In. De Prescr. heret. c. 23. p. 210. See also ο. 8. p. 205.
38 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Having thus given Tertullian’s general view of the subject
before us, I now proceed to consider what objections may be
urged against it.
It may be urged, then, that the greater part of the works of
Tertullian, and almost all those quoted above, were written after
he had embraced Montanism, and believed that the effusions of
Prisca and others were divinely-imspired, and therefore that he
could not have looked upon the Scripture as the only divine
informant.
This objection is so far valid, that it must be admitted, that
Tertullian’s reference to Scripture as the authoritative Rule of
faith must be supposed not to exclude the interpretations of
Scripture given by Montanus and his prophetesses, which were
received by Tertullian as proceeding from the Divine Spirit.
But the admission must not be extended to any new points of
doctrine, for such he did not believe to have been introduced by
the “ New Prophecy,” but only improvements in the discipline
of the Church. His view of the benefits accruing to the Church
from the supposed inspiration of Montanus and his prophetesses
is summarily expressed in the following sentence in his Treatise
on yeiling virgins,—‘‘ What, therefore, is the administration
“of the Paraclete but this, that discipline is directed, that
“the Scriptures are unfolded, that the understanding is im-
““ proved, that an advance is made to better things.’’!
But, nevertheless, this did not prevent him, when reasoning
with those who did not receive the “ New Prophecy,” from
making Scripture the authoritative Rule of faith; and as far as
regards any exception made by him in favour of Montanus and
his prophetesses, as authoritative guides for the interpretation of
that Rule, so far, I suppose, it is needless here to offer any re-
mark. Our opponents are not in this prepared to follow him.
And, therefore, as far as this exception is concerned, his lan-
guage is to us equivalent to the making Scripture the sole autho-
ritative Rule of faith.
But there remains certainly a limitation to be made to the
* “Qui est ergo Paracleti administratio nisi bee, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod
Scripture revelantur, quod intellectus reformatur, quod ad meliora proficitur.”
Ib. De virg. vel. ¢. i. p. 173 ; and see De resurr. c. ult. ad fin. p. 365.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 39
general view of his sentiments given above, as it respects certain
elementary points of the Christian faith, which, like Irenzeus, he
speaks of as proveable, at that time, even independently of Scrip-
ture, by the united testimony of all the Apostolical Churches.!
He thinks, and perhaps justly, considering the period at which
he wrote, when the facts upon which he rested his view might
be verified, that such a testimony established the apostolical
origin of the doctrines for which he cites it.”
These doctrines he has enumerated, with some little variation,
in three of his Treatises, where he has given them under the
1 The strange way in which this remark has been perverted by the Tractarian
Reviewer of the first edition of this work (Brit. Crit. for July, 1842. p. 100.)
requires a brief notice. He says,—‘‘ That the strong expressions of the Fathers
concerning Scripture, whatever they mean, do zot imply the Protestant principle,
Mr. Goode shows us himself by quoting passages to the full as strong from
SS. Irenzeus and Tertullian, of whom he acknowledges (p. 285, 295) [in this
edition, pp. 29, 30, and 39] that they ‘knew certain prime points of the Christian
faith. ...as provable... .. even independently of Scripture, by the united testimony
of all the Apostolical Churches.’ Their strong language then about Scripture did
not mean that they resorted to it for instruction on fundamentals; and therefore
the language of the other Fathers, which is no whit stronger, need not have meant
so either.” The writer of this has completely forgotten, that Irenzus and Ter-
tullian do not mention the “ united testimony of all the Apostolical Churches” as
that to which they themselves had “resorted” for thet own “instruction,” but
only used it as an argument against certain heretics who corrupted the Scriptures
and professed to refer to Tradition. And in order to elicit his required sense
from my words, he has been obliged to alter them, by making me say, that Irenzeus
and Tertullian “new” those points “as provable.... by the united testimony,”
ἄς. The introduction of the word “knew,” which is quite different from what I
used in either place, has completely changed the character of my remark.
Trenzeus and Tertullian repeatedly refer to Scripture as that from which they
had learned this and that doctrine, and speak of the Scriptures as containing a
full account of the whole faith, admitting neither addition nor diminution ; and
(as we shall see hereafter) an account clear enough to be understood by those
willing to be taught by it. This is all that is wanted for the support of “the Pro-
testant principle.” That, at that early period, the “united testimony of all the
Apostolical Churches” might be considered by Irenzeus and Tertullian sufficient,
even without Scripture, to prove that the incarnation of the Son of God, his and
our resurrection, anda future Judgment, were doctrines of Christianity, and that
the Pagan dreams of the early heretics about a multiplicity of Gods and such like
were not so, and that those by whom Scripture was corrupted were at that time
referred by those Fathers to that testimony as conclusive against them, is a
matter which does not in the least affect the witness borne by Irenzeus and Ter-
tullian to the soundness of “ the Protestant principle.”’
2 Ip. De Prescript. heret. ο. 21. p. 209.
3 De virg. vel. c. 1. p. 173. De Prescr. heret. 6. 13. pp. 206, 7. Adv. Prax.
c.2.p.501. See these formule above, vol. i. pp. 112—113.
40 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
title of “the rule of faith,’ and in one of those Treatises, viz.
that “On prescription of heretics,’ he has distinctly stated,
that these truths may be proved to be of Apostolical origin by
the unanimous consent of the Apostolical Churches, mdepen-
dently of Scripture, and that consequently any interpretation of
Scripture contrary to these must be false ; and that since the
heretics had corrupted the Scriptures, and that by allegation of
the Scriptures the door was open to much argumentation, foreign
to the immediate subject, about the true text of Scripture and
such points, it was better not to argue with them on these points
from Scripture, but to allege at once against them the “rule of
faith ” supported by the unanimous consent of all the Aposto-
lical Churches.!
But, for more than the truths so enumerated, and which we
have given in a preceding page,” he does not challenge the con-
sent of the Apostolical Churches. Nay, he as much as inti-
mates, that more could not be so established, for he says,
“ while this form of faith remains in its proper place in your
“ regard, however much you may seek and discuss matters, and
* pour out the whole excess of your curiosity, if anything ap-
“ nears to you either to be doubtful or overshadowed with obscurity,
“ there is some brother, a doctor; gifted with the grace of know-
“ ledge, or some one conversant with those exercised in such
“ matters, some one alike curious with yourself [who can advise
“ you]; but while seeking alone, it is better for you to be
“ ignorant to the last, lest you know what you ought not, be-
“ cause what is necessary you already know. ‘Thy faith,’ saith
“he, ‘hath saved thee ; not exercitation in the Scriptures.”®
He does not, then, refer the inquirer on other points to the con-
sentient testimony of the Churches, but advises the ordinary
inquirer, if he be over curious in his researches into all the
1 De Prescr. heret. ec. 15—21. p. 207—9.
2 See vol. i. pp. 112, 113.
3 “ Manente forma ejus in suo ordine, quantumlibet queras et tractes, et
omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate
pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari, est utique frater aliqui doctor gratia scien-
tie donatus, est aliqui inter exercitatos conversatus, aliqui tecum curiosus.
Tecum tamen querens, novissime ignorare melius est, ne quod non debeas
noris, quia quod debeas nosti. Fides, inquit, tua te salyum fecit; non exer-
citatio Scripturarum.” Lp. De Preser. heret. ο. 14. p. 207.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 41
points treated of in the Scriptures, and finds something which
appears to him doubtful or obscure, to have recourse to some
skilful teacher as a preservative against error; advice, of the
prudence and propriety of which there can, I suppose, be no
question, while it is equally unquestionable, that such a teacher
is not, nor is proposed by Tertullian as, an infallible guide.
Among other objections to this mode of arguing, the heretics
urged, that possibly the Churches might have put an erroneous
sense upon the teaching of the Apostles, to which he justly
replies, “Is it Akely that such Churches and so many should
“ have corrupted the faith precisely in the same way? Nothing
“that happens to many different individuals has precisely the
“ same event in the case of all. There would have been some dif-
*< ference in their doctrine had it been corrupted ; that which is
“ found the same among many, 15 not a corruption, but what was
“ delivered to them.”?
Let the reader observe, that we meet with nothing here about
episcopal grace preserving the pure deposit of the faith ; nor even
the more sober argument of Irenzus, that all the bishops might
be enumerated from the times of the Apostles, and none accused
of corrupting the faith.
And, further, he maintained, that it was easy to show the
novelty of the heresies he was combating, and consequently their
error ; and he calls upon the heretics, if they pretended to deduce
their origin from the Apostles, to point out the succession through
which their doctrine had come down to them, which was a very
just challenge at that time.”
And, lastly, he, like Irenreus, uses this mode of argument
against the heretics, on account apparently of the way in which
they dealt with Scripture, corrupting it, and cavilling with the
correctness of the text, and raising questions and arguments thi t
prevented a fair appeal to Scripture.
This Treatise, viz. “ On prescription of heretics,” is, as far as
Tertullian is concerned, the supposed stronghold of our op-
1 « Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tante in unam fidem erraverint? Nullus
inter multos eventus unus est. LExitus variasse debuerat error doctrine Eccle-
siarum. Ceterum quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed tra-
ditum.” Ip. ib. c. 28. See cc. 27, 8. pp. 211, 12.
2 Ip. ib. cc. 29—32. pp. 212, 19.
42 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
ponents, for though he has spoken favorably of Tradition in
two other places, namely, in his Treatise “On the Crown,”
and that “Against Marcion,” yet his notice of it in the former
is only with respect to matters of discipline,' and, in the latter,
consists of two passing allusions to it in a Treatise of five
books, of which the whole argumentation is derived from Scrip-
ture, and those referring only to a point contained in the Creed
he has given as established by the consent of the Apostolical
Churches, viz. a refutation of Marcion’s idea that the God of
the Old Testament was different from the God of the New.?
His argumentation elsewhere is derived wholly from the
Scriptures, nor does he attempt to press his interpretations of
Scripture upon the authority of Tradition, except im the case
already noticed, i. 6. in the points contained in the Creed he has
given.
Now, in all this, it is difficult to see what support Tertullian
gives to the views of our opponents. Af the time he wrote, he
held that the agreement of all the Apostolical Churches in a few
elementary doctrines, (to which agreement he appeals as a fact
that might be verified,) proved that those doctrmes came from the
Apostles ; and, therefore, that the shortest way of dealing with
the heretics of that day, (for he tells us himself that he used
the argument “ for the sake of brevity,”*) was by adducing this
evidence against them. What then? Does it follow that Ter-
tullian would pursue the same course now? Nay, this is not a
question apparently, for we are not sent to learn the truth thus,
but from a few antient fallible authors. So, then, what is as-
sumed must be, that, because Tertullian made such an appeal
to the Apostolical Churches of his day, therefore he would now
have appealed to a few fallible antient authors, as affording in-
fallible proof of what was the universal opinion of all the
Apostolical Churches sixteen centuries ago.
And after all, as we have already observed, the Creed he
gives as established by the consent of the Apostolical Churches,
1 Ip. De Corona, ee. 8, 4. pp. 101, 102.
3 Ip. Ady. Mare. lib. i. ο. 21, and lib. iii. ¢. i.
* “ Solemus hereticis compendii gratia de posteritate prescribere.” Ip. Adv.
Hermog. ¢. 1. p. 233.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 48
is limited to matters about which there has not been for many
centuries any controversy in the Church. If our opponents were
as moderate as he is in this respect, we should feel little inclined
to disturb their position. But when, in the nineteenth century,
they pretend to a knowledge of antient catholic consent, more
extensive and minute than Tertullian pretended to in the second
century, let them beware how they claim him as a supporter of
their pretensions.
And as to any notion that the Creed of the Apostolical
Churches, as given by Tertullian, adds anything to Scripture,
it is directly opposed to Tertullian’s views, for he is most careful
to maintain its identity with the declarations of Scripture.!
And whether Tertullian’s statement as to these Churches
was correct, no one can now tell.
As Dr. Pusey, in the Tract to which we have referred in a
former page,” has referred to a work on Tertullian, written by
a learned prelate of ourChurch, I willingly join him in the appeal ;
and the reader will find it distinctly stated by that learned author,
that Tertullian held, that “ the Scriptures contained the whole
rule of faith,’> and that he agrees with Dr. Neander, that,
* though on some occasions the Christians of those days might
* appeal solely to the authority of Tradition, they uniformly
“ maintained, that the doctrine of Christianity IN ALL ITS PARTS
“ might be deduced from Holy Writ,’* and that “though inter-
“ pretations which had received the sanction of the Church were
“ not to be lightly rejected, yet the practice of Tertullian himself
“* proves, that he believed every Christian to be at liberty to exercise
* fas own judgment upon them.” ὅ
And in a note in the same place, speaking of Tertullian’s
argument in his Treatise, “ De prescr. heret.” he adds,—“ To
“me he [Tertullian] appears to have appealed to it [Tradition |
“ from necessity—because he could not, from the nature of the
1 Ip. De Prescr. heret. ec. 33, 34, and 38. pp. 214 and 216.
2 See vol. i. pp. 23 and 35.
3 The ecclesiastical history of the second and third centuries illustrated from
the writings of Tertullian, by John [Kaye], Bishop of Bristol. 2nd edit. 1826.
p- 296. 3d ed. 1845. p. 278.
4 Ib. Pref. pp. xvi, xvii; or 3d ed. 1845. p. xxvi.
5 ΤΌ. pp. 296, 7; or, 3d ed. 1845. p. 279.
44. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
4
« dispute in which he was engaged, directly appeal to Scripture.
«« The heretics, with whom he was contending, not only proposed
“a different rule of faith, but in defence of it produced a dif-
“ ferent set of Scriptures. How then was Tertullian to confute
“them? By showing that the faith which he professed, and
“the Scriptures to which he appealed, were, and had always
“ been, the faith and Scriptures of those Churches of which the
“ origin could be traced to the Apostles—the first depositaries
“ of the faith. In this case Tertullian had no alternative: he
“ was compelled to appeal to Apostolic Tradition. But when he
‘is contending against Praxeas, a Heretic who acknowledged
“ the Scriptures received by the Church, though he begins with
“ Jaying down the rule of faith nearly in the same words as in
“the Tract ‘De Prescriptione Hereticorum,’ yet he conducts
the controversy by a constant appeal to Scripture.”
CLEMENT oF ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 192.)
We now come to Clement of Alexandria, one of the most
learned of the early Fathers whose remains are extant, but one
whose works, valuable as they are, exhibit strong traces of
feelings and habits of thought derived more from human philo-
sophy than from divine revelation.1
In entermg upon a review of his opinions on the subject
before us, we have at once to remark his advocacy of a notion
somewhat similar to that of our opponents, and which might by
an incautious reader be confounded with it, but which never-
theless is far from being the same, and moreover is one almost
peculvar to himself, of the Fathers yet extant. It was his opinion,
as we learn from Eusebius, that “ the Lord, after his resurrec-
“ tion, conferred the gift of knowledge upon James the Just,
“John and Peter, which they delivered to the rest of the
“ Apostles, and those to the seventy disciples.”* And in the
1 See especially the first book of his “ Stromata.”
2 Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς [i. 6. Κλήμης} ἐν ἑβδόμῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως [i. 6. Ὑποτυπώ-
cewy |, ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ φησίν' ᾿Ιακώβῳ τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννῃ καὶ Πέτρῳ
μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν παρέδωκε τὴν γνῶσιν 5 Κύριος" οὗτοι τοῖς λοιποῖς ᾿Αποστόλοις
παρέδωκαν: οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ᾿Απόστολοι τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα. Ἐσ5ΕΒ. Hist. Eccl. lib. ἢ,
9. 1. ed. Reading. p. 44.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 45
first Book of his Stromata, he says that the teachers from whom
he had learned the Christian doctrine, “ preserved the true
“ Tradition of the blessed Gospel as delivered by Peter, and
« James, and John, and Paul, the holy Apostles, having received
“it in succession the son from his father, though few are like
“the fathers; and at length, by God’s help, are depositing
“ with us those seeds received from their forefathers and the
* Apostles.” ! A knowledge of this Tradition he considers to
be necessary to constitute a perfect Christian, whom he calls a
Gnostic, distinguishing him from the ordinary Christian, whom
he speaks of as having only common faith.?
This “ Gnostic Tradition,” however, as he frequently calls it,*
was not intended for Christians in general. The Lord, he tells
us, “permitted the Divine mysteries and the holy light to be
“ communicated to those who were capable of receiving them.
“ He did not immediately reveal them to many, because they
* were not adapted to many, but to a few, to whom he knew
“ them to be adapted, and who were both able to receive them
* and to be conformed to them. Secret things, like God, are
* entrusted to speech, not to writing.”* And hence he exhorts
the Gnostic, “ Be cautious in the use of the word, lest any one
* who has fallen in with the knowledge taught by you, and is
“‘ unable to receive the truth, should disobey and be ensnared
“by it; and to those who come without understanding, shut
“ the fountain, whose waters are in the deep, but give drink to
“those who are athirst for truth. Conceal, therefore, this
* fountain from those who are not able to receive the profundity
“ of the knowledge. The Gnostic, who is master of this foun-
1°AAN of μὲν Thy ἀληθῆ τῆς μακαρίας σώζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν, εὐθὺς
ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ Ἰακώβου, Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου, τῶν ἁγίων ᾿Αποστόλων, παῖς
παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόμενος" ὀλίγοι δὲ οἱ πατράσιν ὅμοιοι: ἧκον δὴ σὺν Θεῷ καὶ εἰς
ἡμᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ᾿Αποστολικὰ καταθησόμενοι σπέρματα. CLEM. ALEX.
Strom. lib. i. § 1. pp. 322, 3. Op. ed. Potter. Ox. 1715. (pp. 274, 5. edd. Par.
1641. and Col. 1688.)—See also Strom. lib. vi. p. 771. (or, 645.)
2 See Strom. lib. v. pp. 659, 60. (or, 557, 8.)
3 Ip. Strom. lib. iv. p. 564; (or, 475) ; and, lib. v. p. 683; (or, 577); &e.
4 Μεταδιδόναι δὲ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκείνου τοῦ ἁγίου τοῖς
χωρεῖν δυναμένοις συγκεχώρηκεν [i. 6. 6 Κύριος]. Αὐτίκα οὐ πολλοῖς ἀπεκάλυψεν
& μὴ πολλῶν ἦν, ὀλίγοις δὲ οἷς προσήκειν ἢπίστατο, τοῖς οἵοις τε ἐκδέξασθαι καὶ
τυπωθῆναι πρὸς αὐτά: τὰ δὲ ἀπόῤῥητα, καθάπερ ὁ Θεὸς, λόγῳ πιστεύεται, οὐ γράμ-
vart. Ip. Strom. lib. i. § 1. p. 323. (or, 275.)
46 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
tain, will himself suffer punishment, if he gives occasion to
“ one who as yet is only conversant with little things of taking
“ offence, and of being swallowed up as it were by the great-
* ness of his discourse, or if he transfers one who is only an
“ operative to speculation, and leads him away by occasion of a
“ momentary faith [which has no solid grounds in his mind to
rest upon. |”?
Of this Tradition Clement professes to give in his Stromata
some account, though not of the whole of it, concealing some
part intentionally, as too profound for common ears, and deli-
vering the rest so that a common reader would not understand
its full Gnostic sense,” and, moreover, acknowledging that some
part of what had been dehvered to him had escaped his recol-
lection, not being committed to writing, and other parts par-
tially obliterated by the lapse of time, a tolerably good proof of
the insufficiency of oral tradition for the conveyance of truth.
But we will quote his own words.
After stating that he is about to deliver the Tradition which
he had been taught by his Christian instructors, he adds,—
* But I well know, that many things have escaped us, having
“ by the length of time fallen from my recollection, being un-
“ written; whence, in order to assist the weakness of my memory,
“ and supply myself with a systematic exposition of the prin-
* cipal points, as a useful record for keeping them in remem-
*“‘ brance, I have found it necessary to use this delineation of
“them. There are indeed some things ‘which I do not recollect,
“ for there was in those blessed men great power. And there
** are some things which remained unnoted for some time, and
1 “Iva οὖν μή τις τούτων ἐμπεσὼν εἰς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ διδασκομένην γνῶσιν, ἀκρατὴς
γενόμενος τῆς ἀληθείας, παρακούσῃ τε καὶ παραπέσῃ, ἀσφαλὴς, φησὶ, περὶ τὴν
χρῆσιν τοῦ λόγου γίνου: καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀλόγως προσίοντας, ἄπόκλειε τὴν
ζῶσαν ἐν βάθει πηγήν' ποτὸν δὲ ὄρεγε τοῖς ἀληθείας δεδιψηκόσιν. ᾿ἘἘπικρυπτόμενος
δ᾽ οὖν πρὸς τοὺς οὐχ οἵους τε ὄντας παραδέξασθαι τὸ βάθος τῆς γνώσεως, κατακά-
λυπτε τὸν λάκκον. ‘O κύριος οὖν τοῦ λάκκου, ὃ γνωστικὸς, αὐτὸς (ημιωθήσεται,
φησὶ, τὴν αἰτίαν ὑπέχων τοῦ σκανδαλισθέντος, ἤτοι καταποθέντος τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ
λόγου, μικρολόγου ἔτι ὄντος" ἢ μετακινήσας τὸν ἐργάτην ἐπὶ τὴν θεωρίαν, καὶ ἄπο-
στήσας διὰ προφάσεως τῆς αὐτοσχεδίου πίστεως. In. Strom. lib. v. ὃ 8. p. 678,
(or, 573.)
? Ib. Stom. lib. i. pp. 323, 4; (or, 275); and, lib. vii. p. 901; (or, 766); and
see lib. i. p. 326. (or, 278.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 47
“ which have now escaped me; and some things are nearly ob-
“ literated from my memory, perishing in my own mind, since
“ such a service is not easy to those who are not experienced.
« But reviving the recollection of these things in my writings,
“1 purposely omit some things, making a prudent choice,
“« fearing to write what I even speak with caution and reserve ;
“ not in the spirit of envy, for that would be unjust; but,
“ fearing for my readers, lest by any means they should other-
«( wise be made to fall, and we should be found putting, as
« those who speak in proverbs say, a sword into the hands of a
ehald,”? 4
Now certainly our opponents have here a patron not only of
Oral Tradition, but also of “reserve in the communication of
religious knowledge,” but, unfortunately for their cause, not
the sort of Tradition for which they are contending. The
notion of this Gnostic Tradition, delivered only by our Lord to
three or four of the Apostles, and disclosing certain hidden
meanings of the truths and doctrines of Christianity not in-
tended for Christians in general, is one of which Clement is, out
of those whose writings remain to us, almost the only supporter.
Nay, his statements on this point are directly opposed to
those of Irenzeus and Tertullian, who both inveigh strongly
against any such notion. The former speaks of it as a tenet of
the Carpocratian heretics, who, he tells us, “said, that Jesus
“ spoke some things privately in a mysterious manner to his
“ disciples and Apostles, and commanded them to deliver those
“ things to those that were worthy and obedient.”* And he
1 Πολλὰ δὲ, εὖ οἶδα, παρεῤῥύηκεν ἡμᾶς χρόνου μήκει ἀγράφως διαπεσόντα.
“Ὅθεν τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῆς μνήμης τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπικουφίζων, κεφαλαίων συστηματικὴν
ἔκθεσιν, μνήμης ὑπόμνημα σωτήριον πορίζων ἐμαυτῷ, ἀναγκαίως κέχρημαι τῇδε τῇ
ὑποτυπώσει. Ἔστι μὲν οὖν τινὰ μηδὲ ἀπομνημονευθέντα ἡμῖν" πολλὴ γὰρ ἡ παρὰ
τοῖς μακαρίοις δύναμις ἦν ἀνδράσιν" ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀνυποσημείωτα μεμενηκότα τῷ
χρόνῳ: & νῦν ἀπέδρα: τὰ δὲ, ὅσα ἐσβέννυτο, ἐν αὐτῇ μαραινόμενα τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἐπεὶ
μὴ ῥάδιος ἢ τοιάδε διακονία τοῖς μὴ δεδοκιμασμένοις, ταῦτα δὲ ἀναζωπυρῶν ὗπο-
μνήμασι, τὰ μὲν ἑκὼν παραπέμπομαι, ἐκλέγων ἐπιστημόνως, φοβούμενος γράφειν,
& καὶ λέγειν ἐφυλαξάμην: οὔ τι που φθονῶν" οὐ γὰρ θέμις" δεδιὼς δὲ ἄρα περὶ τῶν
ἐντυγχανόντων, μή πῃ ἑτέρως σφαλεῖεν, καὶ παιδὶ μάχαιραν, ἧ φασιν of παροι-
μιαζόμενοι, ὀρέγοντες ἑυρεθῶμεν. ΤΡ. Strom. lib. i. § 1. p. 324. (or, 276.)
3 Ἔν δὲ τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτῶν οὕτως ἀναγέγραπται, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὕτως ἐξη-
γοῦνται, τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντες ἐν μυστηρίῳ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ᾿Αποστόλοις
48 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
says, “ That Paul taught plainly what he knew, not only to his
“ companions, but to all who heard him, he himself manifests.
“ For, in Miletus, the bishops and presbyters being assembled,
« . . . he says, ‘I have not shunned to declare to you the whole
“ counsel of God’ Thus, the Apostles plainly and willingly
“ delivered ¢o all those things which they had themselves
“ learned from the Lord.”! And again, he says, ‘ The doc-
“ trine of the Apostles is manifest, and firm, and conceals no-
“ thing, and is not that of men who teach one thing in secret
“and another openly. For this is the contrivance of counter-
“ feits, and seducers, and hypocrites, as the Valentinians do.” *
And thus Tertullian ;—* All the sayings of the Lord are
proposed to all.” And he accuses those of “ madness,” who
“think that the Apostles did not reveal all things to all, but
“ that they committed some things openly to all, without exception,
“ and some secretly to a few.’’*
Most justly, therefore, is this notion of Clement, as to a
secret Tradition reserved for a few, pronounced by a learned
prelate of our Church, who is referred to with approbation by
our opponents, to be “ destitute of solid foundation.”’*
And the reserve recommended, is a reserve only in communi-
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν λελαληκέναι, Kal αὐτοὺς ἀξιῶσαι, τοῖς ἀξίοις καὶ τοῖς πειθομένοις ταῦτα
παραδιδόναι. IREN. Adv. Her. lib. i. c. 25. ed. Mass. 1710. p. 104. (ed. Grab. i.
24. p. 101.)
1 «Quoniam autem Paulus simpliciter que sciebat hec et docuit, non solum
eos qui cum eo erant, verum omnes audientes se, ipse facit manifestum. In
Mileto enim conyocatis Episcopis et Presbyteris....‘ Non subtraxi,’ inquit, ‘uti
non annunciarem omnem sententiam Dei vobis.’ Sic Apostoli simpliciter, et
nemini invidentes, que didicerant ipsi a Domino, hee omnibus tradebant.” Ip.
ib. lib. iii. c. 14. pp. 201, 202. (p. 235.)
2 «“Doctrina Apostolorum manifesta, et firma, et nihil subtrahens, neque alia
quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto docentium. Hoc enim fictorum, et
prave seducentium, et hypocritarum est molimen, quemadmodum faciunt hi, qui
a Valentino sunt.” Ib. ib. ο. 15. p. 208. (p. 237.)
3 “Omnia quidem dicta Domini omnibus posita sunt.” Trrtuxn. De Pre-
script. heret. c. 8. Op. ed. 1664. p. 205.
* “Eadem dementia est, cum confitentur quidem nihil Apostolos ignorasse, nec
diversa inter se praedicasse, non tamen omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse, quze-
dam enim palam et universis, quedam secreto et paucis demandasse.” TERTULL.
De Prescript. heret. c. 25. p 210.
δ᾽ Bishop Kaye's Account of the writings and opinions of Clement of Alex-
andria, ch. 8. p. 368.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 49
cating this Gnostic Tradition, not in preaching the great doc-
trines of Christianity ; and one which even to this limited extent
is entirely opposed, as we have shown, to the views of Irenzeus
and Tertullian.
At any rate, as this Gnostic Tradition is confessedly delivered
by Clement so that the uninitiated cannot avail themselves of
it, his writings will not serve to show us its true nature; and
unless our opponents can lay claim to the possession of the key
which unlocks this treasure, his Tradition, and his notions re-
specting it, are to us equally useless and inapplicable. The
knowledge of the profundities of this Mystic Tradition is gone,
and with it the applicability to any practical purpose of all that
is said respecting it.
But, with this exception, he speaks agreeably to the view we
have been attempting to establish, as I shall now proceed to
show. For,
First, he acknowledges no divine informant but Scripture,
and this supposed Gnostic Tradition.
Secondly, with respect to the claims of Scripture, as the Rule
of faith, he speaks thus.
“ He, therefore,” he says, “‘ who believes the divine Scriptures
with a firm conviction, receives an incontrovertible demonstra-
“ tion, namely, the voice of God, who gave the Scriptures.” !
Again ; “ But the just shall live by faith ; that faith, namely,
“which is according to the Testament and the commandments ;
* since these [Testaments], which are two as it respects name
“ and time, having been given, by a wise ceconomy, according
“to age and proficiency, are one in effect. Both the Old and
“ the New were given by one God, through the Son.” *
Again; “ But, since a happy life is set before us by the com-
“ mandments, it behoves us all to follow it, not disobeying
“ anything that is said, nor lightly esteeming what is becoming,
1‘O πιστεύσας τοίνυν ταῖς Γραφαῖς ταῖς θείαις, τὴν κρίσιν βεβαίαν ἔχων,
ἀπόδειξιν ἀναντίῤῥητον, τὴν τοῦ τὰς Γραφὰς δεδωρημένου φωνὴν λαμβάνει Θεοῦ.
In. Strom. lib. ii. § 2. p. 433. (or, 362.)
3 Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, τῆς κατὰ THY Διαθήκην καὶ Tas evToAas:
ἐπειδὴ δύο αὗται ὀνόματι καὶ χρόνῳ, καθ᾽ ἡλικίαν καὶ προκοπὴν οἰκονομικῶς δεδο-
μέναι, δυνάμει μία οὖσαι: ἣ μὲν, παλαιά: ἣ δὲ, καινὴ, διὰ υἱοῦ παρ᾽ ἑνὸς Θεοῦ
χορηγοῦνται. Ip. Strom. lib. ii. § 6. p. 444. (or, 372.)
VOL. III. E
50 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ though of the most trifling nature, but following whithersoever
“ the word may lead ; if we err from it, we must necessarily fall
“ into endless evil. But they who follow the divine Scripture,
“ by which believers walk, that they may become, as far as they
“ can, like the Lord, ought not to live carelessly, but,” &c.+
Again, he tells us, that for those who, “for the benefit of
“their neighbours, betake themselves, some to writing, and
“others to the oral delivery of the word, while learning of
“ another kind is useful, the perusal of the Dominical Scriptures
“is necessary for the proof of what they say.”?
And in the seventh book of his Stromata, repiyg to the
objection of the heathen to Christianity, on the ground of its
followers being divided into so many sects, he says,—“ But
“when proof is being given, it is necessary to descend to the
‘particular questions, and to learn demonstratively, from the
“ Scriptures themselves, how, on the one hand, the sects were
“ deceived, and how, on the other, both the most perfect know-
“ ledge, and that which is in reality the best sect, are in the
“ truth alone and the antient Church.”’®
Nor let it be supposed, that by the words “the antient
Church,” he says anything opposed to our views; for, by that
phrase, he means the Church under the Apostles ; as is evident,
not only by the time when he wrote, but from his own words a
little further on.*
Again, he says,—“ They who are willing to labour for the
“ acquisition of those things which are of the greatest excellence,
1 °-Eze) δὲ βίος τὶς ἡμῖν μακάριος δι’ ἐντολῶν ἐπιδέδεικται" ᾧ χρὴ πάντας ἕπο-
μένους, μὴ παρακούοντας τῶν εἰρημένων τινὸς, μηδὲ ὀλιγωροῦντας τῶν προσηκόντων,
κἂν ἐλάχιστον ἢ, ἕπεσθαι ἣ ἂν ὃ Λόγος ἡγῆται: εἰ σφαλείημεν αὐτοῦ, ἀθανάτῳ
κακῷ περιπεσεῖν ἀνάγκη" κατακολουθήσασι δὲ τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ, δι’ js ὁδεύουσιν of
πεπιστευκότες, ἐξομοιοῦσθαι κατὰ δύναμιν τῷ Κυρίῳ, οὐκ ἀδιαφόρως βιωτέον, ἀλλὰ
k.7.A. Ip. Strom. lib. iii. § 5. p. 530. (or, 443.)
2 Διὰ. δὲ Thy τῶν πέλας ὠφέλειαν, τῶν μὲν, ἐπὶ τὸ γράφειν ἱεμένων" τῶν δὲ,
ἐπὶ τὸ παραδιδόναι στελλομένων τὸν λόγον" ἥτε ἄλλη παιδεία χρήσιμος, ἥτε τῶν
γραφῶν τῶν Κυριακῶν ἀνάγνωσις εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τῶν λεγομένων ἀναγκαία. Το. Strom.
lib. vi. § 11. p. 786. (or, 660.)
3 ῬΑποδείξεως δ᾽ οὔσης, ἀνάγκη συγκαταβαίνειν εἰς τὰς ζητήσεις, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῶν
τῶν γραφῶν ἐκμανθάνειν ἀποδεικτικῶς, ὅπως μὲν ἀπεσφάλησαν αἱ αἱρέσεις, ὅπως
δὲ ἐν μόνῃ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτε ἀκριβεστάτη γνῶσις, καὶ ἣ
τῷ ὄντι ἀρίστη αἵρεσις. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 15. p. 888. (or, 755).
4 Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 17. pp. 898, 9. (or 764, 5.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 51
“will not desist from their search for truth, before they have
“ received a proof from the Scriptures themselves.” }
And again,—®“ Thus, therefore, we, giving perfect proof
“respecting the Scriptures, from the Scriptures themselves,
“ believe through faith with demonstrative evidence.” 3
“ The truth,” he says,.... “is found, by considering atten-
“ tively what is perfectly proper and becoming for the Lord and
“the Almighty God, and by confirming each of the things de-
“ monstrated by the Scriptures from like Scriptures.’”’?
And a little further on his language clearly shows, that he
appealed to the Scripture alone as the Rule and Judge of
controversies, in disputing with those who differed from him,
where he says,—‘‘ When we have overthrown them by demon-
“ strating that they are clearly opposed to the Scriptures, you will
“ see the leaders of the doctrine opposed, do one of two things ;
“ for either they give up the consequence of their own doctrines,
“ or the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope.’’*
“ They,” he says, “who do not follow God whithersoever
“ he may lead them, fall away from that exalted state [which
“he has been describing]; and God leads by the divinely-
“ inspwred Scriptures.” ὃ
2 °AAN of πονεῖν ἕτοιμοι ἐπὶ τοῖς καλλίστοις, ov πρότερον ἀποστήσονται
ζητοῦντες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, πρὶν ἂν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν λάβωσι τῶν γραφῶν.
In. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 889. (or, 755.)
2 Οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν περὶ αὐτῶν τῶν γραφῶν τελείως ἀποδεικνύντες
ἐκ πίστεως πειθόμεθα ἀποδεικτικῶς. ID. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 891. (or, 757.) See
also the preceding context of this passage,—Tj τοῦ Κυρίου φωνῇ πιστούμεθα
τὸ ζητούμενον: ἣ πασῶν ἀποδείξεων ἐχεγγυωτέρα, μᾶλλον δὲ, ἣ μόνη ἀπόδειξις
οὖσα τυγχάνε. But as the meaning of the phrase Κυρίου φωνῇ is con-
tested, I shall not here press this testimony; though I have the authority of
Bisnor Kaye (Account of writings, &c. of Clement of Alexandria, p. 219) for
interpreting the phrase as meaning the Scriptuies,—which renders the passage a
remarkably strong testimony in our favor.
8 Ἢ ἀλήθεια δὲ. .. εὑρίσκεται... ἐν τῷ διασκέψασθαι τί τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ
τῷ παντοκράτορι Θεῷ τελείως οἰκεῖόν τε καὶ πρέπον" κἂν τῷ βεβαιοῦν ἕκαστον τῶν
ἀποδεικνυμένων κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς, ἐξ αὐτῶν πάλιν τῶν ὁμοίων γραφῶν. Ib. Strom.
lib. vii. § 16. p. 891. (or, 758.)
4 "Ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ἀνατρέπωνται πρὸς ἡμῶν, δεικνύντων αὐτοὺς σαφῶς ἐναντιουμένους
ταῖς γραφαῖς, δυοῖν θάτερον ὑπὸ τῶν προεστώτων τοῦ δόγματός ἐστι θεάσασθαι
γινόμενον" ἢ γὰρ τῆς ἀκολουθίας τῶν σφετέρων δογμάτων, ἣ τῆς προφητείας
αὐτῆς, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἐλπίδος καταφρονοῦσιν. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 16.
Ῥ. 892. (or, 758.)
5 ᾿Αποπίπτουσιν ἄρὰ τοῦδε τοῦ ὕψους, of μὴ ἑπόμενοι Θεῷ, ἐὰν (ἣ ἂν Potter)
E2
52 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
From these passages, I think, it is evident, that the Holy
Scriptures were proposed by Clement, as the authoritative
Rule of faith and Judge of controversies for all Christians,
and to all but his Gnostic Christian, the sole and exclusive
Rule and Judge.
Unless, then, our opponents are willing to contend for his
notions about a Gnostic Tradition, delivered to four of the
Apostles, and left as a deposit with certain rabbies of the Church
for the benefit of a few mature Christians,! they will derive no
benefit from Clement’s testimony on this matter.
Moreover, notwithstanding his notions about a Gnostic Tra-
dition, it is evident, that he considered it to be only an exposition
of Scripture, and not as containing any additional doctrines or
points of faith ; for he says ;—‘ We offer them that which cannot
“ be contradicted, even that of which God is the author ; and of
“ each one of those things which form the subject of our inquiries,
“ he has taught us inthe Scriptures.” *
And it is clear from many passages, that he considered the
Gnostic Tradition as only explanatory of Scripture, and not
as adding to it any new points of faith. Thus, he says, when
about to give a description of the Christian faith,—* We shall
“bring testimonies from the Scriptures hereafter, in their
“proper places; but we shall give what they deliver, and
“ describe the Christian faith (or Christianity) in a summary
“way....and if what we say should appear to any of the
“ vulgar contrary to the Dominical Scriptures, they must know,
“ that, from that source, they have their breath and life; and
“ taking their origin from them, profess to give the sense only,
“ not the words.’’®
So, also, he intimates elsewhere, that the Gnostic Tradition de-
ἡγῆται: ἡγεῖται δὲ κατὰ τὰς θεοπνεύστους γραφάς. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. Ὁ. 894.
(or, 761.)
1 See Strom. lib. vii. § 10. pp. 864, 5. (or, 731, 2.)
3 Προτείνομεν γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἀναντίῤῥητον ἐκεῖνο, ὃ ὁ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ λέγων, καὶ περὶ
ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ὧν ἐπιζητῶ, παριστὰς ἐγγράφως. Ip. Strom. lib. v. § 1. p. 646.
(or, 547.)
3 Κατὰ τοὺς ἐπικαίρους τόπους ὕστερον ταῖς γραφαῖς συγχρησόμενοι" τὰ δ᾽ ἐὲ
αὐτῶν δηλούμενα σημανοῦμεν κεφαλαιωδῶς τὸν χριστιανισμὸν ὑπογράφοντες . ..
κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισὶ τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγόμενα τῶν Κυριακῶν
γραφῶν. ἰστεον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ Gh, καὶ τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK, 53
lvered only things “ agreeable to the divinely-inspired oracles.”’!
And that “the Gnostic knows antient things, and conjectures
things to come, by the Scriptures.”””
Hence, he says, that “they who have only tasted the Scrip-
“ tures, are believers ; but they who have advanced further are
““ perfect indexes of the truth, namely, the Gnostics, as, in things
“ pertaining to this life, those who understand any art, possess
“ something more than the ignorant, and produce that which is
* superior to the ideas of the vulgar.’#
It is evident, therefore, that, (as the learned prelate already
quoted has observed,)—‘ The same Scriptures were placed in
“ the hands of Clement’s Gnostic, and of the common believer ;
“but he interpreted them on different principles; he affixed
“to them a higher and more spiritual meanmg. The same
“ doctrines were proposed as the objects of his faith ; but he ex-
“‘ nlained them in a different manner; he discovered in them
‘hidden meanings, which are not discernible by the vulgar
ce eye’ *
Hirrotytus THE Marryr. (fl. a. 220.)
I pass on to a venerable and much-esteemed name, Hip-
polytus the Martyr, who thus bears his testimony on all the
great points in question.
“There is one God, of whom, brethren, we have no knowledge,
“ but from the Holy Scriptures. For as, if any one should wish
** to cultivate the wisdom of this world, he will not be able to
“ obtain it otherwise than by reading the doctrines of the philo-
“« sophers ; in the same way, as many of us as would cultivate reli-
** gion, shall not be able to learn it anywhere else than from the
τὸν νοῦν μόνον, ov Thy λέξιν παριστᾷν ἐπαγγέλληται. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 1.
p- 829. (or, 699, 700.)
1 Τὰ προσφυῆ τοῖς θεοπνεύστοις λόγοις ὑπὸ τῶν μακαρίων ᾿Αποστόλων τε καὶ
διδασκάλων παραδιδόμενα. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 896. (or. 762.)
3 Ὃ γνωστικὸς γὰρ oldev κατὰ Thy γραφὴν Ta ἀρχαῖα, καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα εἰκάζει.
Ip. Strom. lib. vi. § 11. p. 786. (or, 660.) See also lib. vi. § 15. p. 802. (or, 676.)
3 Of μὲν ὀπογευσάμενοι μόνον τῶν γραφῶν, πιστόι' of δὲ καὶ προσωτέρω χωρή-
σαντες, ἀκριβεῖς γνώμονες τῆς ἀληθείας ὑπάρχουσιν, οἱ γνωστικοί: ἐπεὶ κἂν τοῖς
κατὰ τὸν βίον ἔχουσί τι πλέον οἱ τεχνίται τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, καὶ παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας
ἐκτυποῦσι τὺ βέλτιον. ΤΡ. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 891. (or, 757.)
4 Br. Kaye’s Account &c. of Clem. of Alex. pp. 367, 8,
54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
*¢ oracles of God. Whatsoever, therefore, the divine writings pro-
“ claim, let us observe ; and whatsoever they teach, let us make
“ ourselves acquainted with ; and let us believe in the Father, as
“ the Father wills to be believed in ; and let us glorify the Son, as
“ he wills that the Son should be glorified ; and let us receive the
“ Holy Spirit, as he wills that the Holy Spirit should be given.
“ Not [viewing these things] according to our own preconceived
“ prejudices, nor according to our own notions, nor putting a
“ forced construction upon what God has delivered, but according
“to the form which he purposed to point out to us by the Holy
* Scriptures, thus let us view it.””}
OricEn. (fl. a. 230.)
Our next witness shall be Origen. And nothing can be
more to the point, than the passage we have quoted from him
above, in illustration of another question, where he says,—‘ To
“ me it seems good to cleave close, as to God and our Lord Jesus
“ Christ, so also to his Apostles, and to take my information from
“ the divine Scriptures, according to their own tradition.”*
Again ;—“ These two things are the works of a priest ; that
“ he should either be learning from God, by reading and frequently
“ meditating upon the divine Scriptures, or be teaching the people.
“« But let him teach those thingswhich he himself shall have learnt
“ from God, not from his own heart, or from the human under-
“ standing, but what the Holy Spirit teaches.’’*
1 Εἷς Θεὸς, ὃν οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἐπιγινώσκομεν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἢ [ex] τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν.
“Ov γὰρ τρόπον ἐάν τις βουληθῆ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἀσκεῖν, οὐκ ἄλλως
δυνήσεται τούτου τυχεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ δόγμασι φιλοσόφων ἐντύχῃ, τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον
ὅσοι θεοσέβειαν ἀσκειν βουλόμεθα, οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἀσκήσομεν ἢ ἐκ τῶν λογίων τοῦ
Θεοῦ. Ὅσα τοίνυν κηρύσσουσιν αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ, ἴδωμεν, καὶ ὅσα διδάσκουσιν,
ἐπιγνῶμεν, καὶ ὡς θέλει πατὴρ πιστεύεσθαι, πιστεύσωμεν, καὶ ὡς θέλει υἱὸν δοξά-
εσθαι, δοξάσωμεν, καὶ ὡς θέλει πνεῦμα ἅγιον δωρεῖσθαι, λάβωμεν. Μὴ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν
προαίρεσιν, μηδὲ κατ᾽ ἴδιον νοῦν, μηδὲ βιαζόμενοι τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδομένα, ἀλλ᾽
dv τρόπον αὐτὸς ἐβουλήθη διὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν δεῖξαι, οὕτως ἴδωμεν. HIPPOL.
Mart. Homil. contra Noet. § 9. Op. ed. Fabric. 1716—1718. vol. ii. pp. 12, 13.
2 See p. 3 above.
8 “Hee duo sunt pontificis opera; ut aut a Deo discat legendo Scripturas
divinas, et seepius meditando, aut populum doceat. Sed illa doceat, qui ipse a
Deo didicerit, non ex proprio corde, vel ex humano sensu, sed que Spiritus Sanctus
docet.” OnrtcEen. In Levit. hom. 6. ὃ 6. Op. ed. Ben. Paris. 1733 et seq.
tom. il. p. 219.
~
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 55
“We must take the Scriptures as witnesses [to prove the
“ truth of what we say]. For our doctrines and interpretations
** without such witness, are not to be believed.” !
“ If the oracles of God are in the Law and Prophets and Gospels
“and Apostles, it will behove one who has been taught by the
** oracles of God, to reckon God his master.”?
Speaking of our Saviour silencing the Sadducees by a refer-
ence to Scripture, he says,—‘ As our Saviour imposed silence
“ on the Sadducees by the word of his doctrine, and confidently
“ refuted the false dogma which they esteemed to be the truth, so
“‘ will the followers of Christ also do by instances from the
“ Scriptures, to which, according to sound doctrine, it behoves
“every voice of Pharaoh to submit im silence... .. We
“ ought to treat of those things that are not written, according
“ to the things that are written.”
Again ;—St. Paul, “as is his custom, is desirous of confirming
** what he had said from the Holy Scriptures; and at the same
“ time affords an example to the teachers of the Church, that in
“ what they preach to the people, they should bring forward not
“ their own imaginations, but things that are supported by the
*« divine testimonies.”* Similarly to what he says elsewhere, that
“ he is circumcised and clean, who always speaks the word of
“ God, and brings forward sound doctrine, supported by Evan-
“ selical and Apostolical admonitions.” ®
1 Mdprupas δεῖ λαβεῖν τὰς γραφὰς" ἀμάρτυροι γὰρ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ ἡμῶν καὶ αἱ
ἐξηγήσεις ἄπιστοί εἰσιν. Ld, In Jerem. hom. 1. § 7. tom. iii. p. 129,
2 Ei Θεοῦ λόγιά ἐστιν ἐν Νόμῳ, καὶ Προφήταις, Εὐαγγελίοις τε καὶ ᾿Αποστόλοις,
δεήσει τὸν μαθητευόμενον Θεοῦ λογίοις διδάσκαλον ἐπιγράφεσθαι Θεόν. Ip. In
Jerem. hom. 10. init. (sec. Hieron. hom. 8.) tom. ili. p. 182.
3 « Sicut Salvator verbo doctrine sue silentium imposuit Sadduceeis, et falsum
dogma, quod apud illos veritas putabatur, convicit fiducialiter; sic facient et
Christi imitatores exemplis scripturarum, quibus oportet, secundum sacram doc-
trinam, omnem vocem obmutescere Pharaonis....Secundum ea enim que scripta
sunt, tractare debemus et ea que scripta non sunt.” Ip. In Matt. Comment.
Series, § 1. (al. Tract. 23.) tom. iii. p. 830,
4 « Ut ei moris est, de Scripturis sanctis vult affirmare quod dixerat: simul et
doctoribus Ecclesie prabet exemplum, ut ea que loquuntur ad populum non
propriis presumpta sententiis, sed divinis munita testimoniis proferant.’’ Ip. In
Epist. ad Rom. lib. iii. § 2. tom. iv. p. 504.
5 “Circumcisus et mundus est, qui semper verbum Dei loquitur, et sacram
doctrinam Evangelicis et Apostolicis munitam regulis profert.” Ip. In Genes.
hom. iii. § 5. tom. ii. p. 69. :
56 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“See,” he says, “how close they are upon danger, who
“ neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures, which alone ought
“ to direct our judgment in such an examination,” that 15, as to
who are true and who are false ministers of Christ.
A very remarkable testimony this as it respects other poimts
in the present controversy, beside that immediately before us.
For we here see, that the Scriptures are considered by Origen
as the proper test of orthodoxy and the true Church. And
hence we see what is meant by those passages that are often
triumphantly adduced in defence of pseudo-catholic views, such
for instance as the following,—* It is a capital sin,” says Origen,
“to think otherwise of the divine doctrines than the faith of
‘*the Church contains.” No doubt it is; but it is not here
intended, that the dictum of any certain body of men should be
laid down as the ground upon which our faith is to rest. It is
true in the mouth of all parties, that he who in fundamental
points does not hold the faith of the true Church of Christ is
in fundamental error. But before we can make the creed of
that Church the ground of our faith, we must determine infal-
libly who constitute that Church, and one of the necessary evi-
dences by which we must discern that Church, is its holding the
orthodox faith, which therefore must be determined before we
can discover that Church. And when we consider these words
in connection with him who uttered them, we shall see most
forcibly how little practical meaning they have. For what sort
of exposition would Origen have given of the doctrines of the
Church? An exposition unsound even in the highest points,
and full (as Jerome will tell us*) of his own vagaries.
Further, Holy Scripture is with him the complete Rule of
faith. For, commenting on Lev. vil. 17, 18, on the words that
the sacrifice was to be eaten within two days, and that if any
1“ Unde vide quam proximi periculo fiant hi qui exerceri in divinis literis
negligunt, ex quibus solis hujusmodi examinationis agnoscenda discretio est.”
Ip. In Ep. ad Rom. lib. x. ὃ 35. tom. iv. p. 684. And he says elsewhere,—* Divi-
nare magis est quam explanare, ubi quod dicitur non de Seripturarum auctoritate
maunitur.” In Exod. hom. xiii. § 2. tom. ii. p. 176.
* “Capitis peecatum est, aliter quam fides Ecclesiz continet de divinis sentire
dogmatibus.” Ip. In Levit. hom. viii. § 11. tom. ii. p. 235.
3 See the notes in vol. i. pp. 247, 18 and p. 221 of this work.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 57
remained to the third day it was to be burnt, he says ;—“ By
“ these two days I think that the two Testaments may be under-
* stood, in which every word which belongs to God (for this is
“ΚΕ the sacrifice) may be sought and discovered, and a knowledge of
“all things obtained from them. But if anything shall remain
* which the Divine Scripture does not determine, no other third
“ scripture must be taken as an authority for our information,
“ because this is called the third day, but we must put into the
** fire what remains, that is, we must leave it with God. For God
“ does not intend that in the present lifewe should know all things
«.... . Lest, therefore, our sacrifice should not be accepted,
“ and this very thing, namely, that we desire to inform ourselves
“‘ from the divine Scriptures, become to us a cause of sin, let us
“ keep ourselves within those limits which the spiritual law an-
“ nounces to us by the legislator.’ Absurdly fanciful as this
interpretation is, it shows most forcibly Origen’s views upon
the point now in question.
Again ;—“ Therefore in proof of all the words we utter when
“ teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as
“ confirming the doctrine we utter. For, as all the gold that
“is without the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that
“ is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable
“ to some, is not sacred, because it is not comprehended within
“ the doctrine of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone
« which it contains within itself, as the temple [renders sacred ]
“ the gold that is in it. We ought not, therefore, for the con-
“ firmation of our instructions, to swear by and take as evidence
“ our own notions, which we individually hold, and think to be
“‘ agreeable to truth, unless we are able to show, that they are
1 “Tn hoe biduo puto duo Testamenta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne
verbum quod ad Deum pertinet, (hoc enim est sacrificium,) requiri et discuti,
atque ex ipsis omnem rerum scientiam capi. Si quid autem superfuerit, quod non
divina Scriptura decernat, nullam aliam tertiam scripturam debere ad auctoritatem
scientiz suscipi, quia hee dies tertia nominatur, sed igni tradamus quod superest,
id est Deo reservemus. Neque enim in presenti vita Deus scire nos omnia voluit
...- Ne forte ergo non fiat acceptum sacrificium nostrum, et hoc ipsum, quod ex
divinis Scripturis cupimus scientiam capere, vertatur nobis in peccatum, servemus
eas mensuras quas nobis per legislatorem lex spiritalis enunciat.” Ip. In Levit.
hom. v. § 9. tom. ii. p. 212.
58 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
,
* sacred, as being contained in the divine Scriptures as in some
* temples of God.”!
And hence, when discussing the question concerning the
guardian angels of children, at what period they are appointed
to them, at their birth or baptism, he says, (if the antient Latin
version may be trusted,)—“ You see, that it is the duty of one
‘© who would discuss both of them with caution, to show which
““ of them is true, and to adduce in proof Scripture-testimony
“ aereeing with one of the two.”?
To the strong testimony given in favor of our position in
the above passages, I know of no drawback, except what may
be supposed to arise from his language when delivering the
Creed of the Church, already quoted from him in a previous
page? Of this Creed he speaks as having been delivered by
the Apostles, and “remaining up to that time in the Churches ;”
and says, that “that alone was to be held as the truth, which
“in no respect disagreed with the ecclesiastical and Apostolical
“ Tradition.”4 And elsewhere, arguing against the heresies of
Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and others, he says,— But we
“ ought not to believe them, nor to depart from the original
“and ecclesiastical Tradition, nor to believe otherwise than
* according to what the Churches of God have by succession
delivered to τι5.᾽ ὅ
1 « Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verborum que proferimus in doc-
trina, proferre sensum Scripture quasi confirmantem quem exponimus sensum.
Sicut enim omne aurum quod fuerit extra templum non est sanctificatum, sic
omnis sensus qui fuerit extra divinam Scripturam, quamvis admirabilis videatur
quibusdam, non est sanctus, quia non continetur a sensu Scripture, que solet
eum solum sensum sanctificare quem habet in se, sicut templum proprium aurum.
Non ergo debemus ad confirmandam doctrinam nostram nostros proprios intel-
lectus jurare, et quasi testimonia assumere, quos unusquisque nostrum intelligit,
et secundum veritatem existimat esse, ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse, ex eo quod in
Scripturis continentur divinis quasi in templis quibusdam Dei.” Ib. In Matt.
Comment. Series, § 18. (al. Tract. 23.) tom. iii. p. 842.
2 «Vides quoniam qui caute utrumque discusserit, illius est affirmare utrum
eorum sit verum, et ad testimonium proferre Scripturam uni ex duobus consen-
tientem.” Ip. In Matth. tom. xiii. § 27. sec. vet. interpret. tom. 111. p. 607.
5 See vol. i. pp. 216—20.
4 “Cum multi sint, qui se putant sentire que Christi sunt, et nonnulli eorum
diversa a prioribus sentiant, servetur vero ecclesiastica preedicatio per successionis
ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, et usque ad presens in ecclesiis permanens : illa sola
credenda est veritas, que in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione.”
Ip. De princip. lib. i. Preef. § 2. tom. i. p. 47.
5 “Sed nos illis credere non debemus, nec exire a prima et ecclesiastica tra-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 59
Now from these words it no doubt follows, that for the truth
of the doctrines contained in that Creed he considered that
there was proof, independent of Scripture, in the consentient
teaching of the Apostolical Churches.
But first let us consider, to what points this Creed, for which
the consent of the Apostolical Churches is challenged by
Origen, extends. Hardly to one of the points in controversy
in the present day. How, then, can the authority of Origen
be now pleaded for a reference to “ Tradition” in proof of
points for which he does not challenge the evidence of Tradition
in his own day? He professes to give in this Creed the whole
of that for which the consent of the Apostolical Churches could
be claimed. We cannot, then, quote him as sanctioning an
appeal to “ Tradition ” on other points.
Moreover, he gives no intimation that these points are not all
fully and clearly delivered in Scripture, but, on the contrary,
his language in other places shows, that he was altogether op-
posed to any such notion.
Further; his appeal is of a totally different nature from any
that can be made now. His comparative proximity to the times
of the Apostles, made his reference to the testimony then borne
by the Apostolical Churches altogether different from a reference
in the present day to the witness of the works accidentally re-
maining to us of a few antient authors. His statements, there-
fore, fall far short of affordmg any countenance to the theory
of the Romanists or the Tractators. On the contrary, when
taken as a whole, and viewed with reference to the present day,
they will, I think, be considered by an impartial reader clearly
to support the opposite view.
Lastly, whatever may be thought of such passages, an
appeal to Origen in support of the views which we are
here opposing, is a most unfortunate mistake. For, as we
have already seen, he makes this “Tradition” to which he
refers responsible for some of his own errors.' His case, then,
ditione, nec aliter credere, nisi quemadmodum per successionem ecclesiz Dei
tradiderunt nobis.” Ib, In Matth. Comment. Series, § 46. (al. Tract. 29.) tom.
ili. p. 864.
ΠῚ See notes in vol. i. pp. 217, 18 and p. 221. Also Hirron. Ep. ad Avit. ep.
124. ed. Vallars. Venet. 1766 et seq.
60 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
affords a clear proof, that, even at that early period, men might
make great mistakes, and embrace serious errors, and at the same
time claim “ Church-Tradition ” in their favor; and, conse-
quently, that the statements of even the earlier Fathers as to
the doctrine of the Apostolical Churches cannot be fully de-
pended upon.
Dionysius or ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 247.)
There is also a remarkable testimony to Scripture as the Rule
of faith, in an extract given us by Eusebius, from the writings
of Dionysius of Alexandria. Dionysius there gives us an account
of his going into the province of the Arsinoite, and convening
a meeting of the presbyters and others of those parts, to discuss
the doctrines of the Millenarians, to which many in those parts
were attached. What, then, was the Rule of judgment to this
meeting? At that early period one might not have been sur-
prised if some reference had been made to Tradition. But we
find nothing of the kind. On the contrary, we are told by
Dionysius, in praise of the spirit and mode of proceeding of the
assembly, that while they attempted to maintain, as far as
they could, their own notions, they were not ashamed, when
the argument went against them, to confess their error; “ but,
“on the contrary, acting most conscientiously and sincerely,
“and with hearts laid open to God’s view, fully received those
“ things that were established by proofs and testimonies of the
“« Holy Scriptures,” +
Cyprian. (fl. a. 248.)
I proceed to the venerable Cyprian, whose testimony is beyond
exception in our favor, and remarkably strong.
In the celebrated contest between him and Stephen, bishop of
Rome, respecting the rebaptization of those baptized by heretics,
it was pleaded by Stephen, that “Tradition” was against it. To
this Cyprian replies, —“ ‘ Let nothing new be introduced,’ says
‘Stephen, ‘but what is delivered [tradited] to us.? Whence
“is that tradition ? Does it descend from Dominical and Evan-
'PAAN εὐσυνειδήτως καὶ ἀνυποκρίτως, καὶ ταῖς καρδίαις πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἥπλω-
μέναις, τὰ ταῖς ἀποδείξεσι καὶ διδασκαλίαις τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν συνιστανόμενα κατα-
δεχόμενοι. Dionys. ALEX. in Evses. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 24. ed. Reading.
Ρ. 351.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 61
“ gelical testimony, or does it come from the commands and
“ epistles of the Apostles? For, God declares that those things
“ are to be done, that are written .... If, therefore, it is either
“ commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or
* Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy
“ should not be baptized, but only hands be placed upon them
“ for repentance, let that divine and holy tradition be observed
“.... But if there is but one baptism, which is among us, and
“is internal, and, of the divine favor, has been granted to the
“ Church alone, what obstinacy and presumption it is to prefer
“a human tradition to the divine appointment, and not to per-
“ ceive, that God is indignant and angry as often as human
“ tradition annuls and neglects the divine precepts... . Custom
“ without truth is merely old error; wherefore, leaving the
“error, let us follow truth.... But it is reckoned a gain by
“‘ pious and simple minds both to lay aside the error, and to find
* and search out the truth. For, if we return to the head and
“ original of the Divine Tradition, human error ceases.... If
“an aqueduct, which before flowed largely and in abundance,
“ suddenly fails, do not we go to the fountain, that the reason of
“ the failure may there be ascertained, whether the water is dried
* up through the exhaustion of the supply at the fountain-head,
“ or whether flowing thence freely and fully it has failed in the
“ middle of its course ; that if it has been caused through the
“‘ pipe being broken or porous, so that the water could not flow
“on in a continuous stream, the pipe may be repaired and made
“‘ good, and the water collected may be supplied for the use and
“ drink of the city, with the same fulness and perfection with
“ which it rises from the fountain-head ? And this it now be-
“* comes the priests of God to do, observing the divine precepts,
“so that if the truth has in anything wavered, we may return
“ to the Dominical original and the Evangelical and Apostolical
“ Tradition, and the form of our actions may take its rise from
*‘ thence whence their order and origin took their rise. For it
“is delivered to us, that there is one God, and one Christ, and
“one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism
« (Eph. iv. 4—6.], ordained only in one Church ; and whcever
“ departs from this unity, he must necessarily be found among
“heretics; whom while he [1.. 6. Stephen] defends against
62 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ the Church, he impugns the sacred mystery of the Divine
“ Tradition.” Ὁ
Here, then, we clearly see, that, even in a matter of Church-
order, Cyprian allows that only to be a divine tradition which is
to be found in Scripture, and characterizes everything else as
human tradition; thereby affirming in the strongest way the
whole of that for which we are here contending against the Ro-
manists and the Tractators. And if this was the case in the
middle of the third century, how much more in the middle of
the nineteenth!* The testimony of Augustine is no doubt op-
posed to this, who, speaking of this matter, maintains, in opposi-
tion to Cyprian, that there are some points of Church-order,
1 « «Nihil innovetur,’ inquit, ‘nisi quod traditum est.’ Unde est ista traditio ἢ
utrumne de Dominica et Evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum
mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ea enim facienda esse que scripta sunt, Deus
testatur.... Si ergo aut in Evangelio precipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut
Actibus continetur, ut a quacunque heresi venientes non baptizentur, sed tantum
manus illis imponatur in peenitentiam, observetur divina hec et sancta traditio
.--- Quod si .. baptisma non nisi unum est, quod apud nos est, et intus est, et soli
Ecclesiz de divina dignatione concessum est, que ista obstinatio est, queeve pre-
sumptio, humanam traditionem divine dispositioni anteponere, nec animadvertere,
indignari et irasci Deum quotiens divina precepta solvit et preterit humana
traditio .... Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est; propter quod relicto
errore sequamur veritatem .... In compendio est autem apud religiosas et sim-
plices mentes et errorem deponere et invenire atque eruere veritatem. Nam si ad
Divine Traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error humanus....
Si canalis aquam ducens, qui copiose prius et largiter profluebat, subito deficiat ;
nonne ad fontem pergitur, ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur, utrumne arescentibus
venis in capite unda siccaverit ; an vero integra inde et plena procurrens in medio
itinere destiterit ; ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est, quo minus
aqua continua perseveranter ac jugiter flueret, refecto et confirmato canali, ad
usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate
representetur, qua de fonte proficiscitur? Quod et nunc facere oportet Dei
sacerdotes preecepta divina servantes, ut si in aliquo nutaverit et vacillaverit
veritas, ad originem Dominicam et Evangelicam et Apostolicam Traditionem
revertamur, et inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde et ordo et origo surrexit.
Traditum est enim nobis quod sit unus Deus, et Christus unus, et una spes, et
fides una, et una Ecclesia, et baptisma unum [ Eph. iv. 4—6], non nisi in una
Ecclesia constitutum, a qua unitate quisquis discesserit, cum hzereticis necesse est
inveniatur ; quos dum contra Ecclesiam vindicat, sacramentum divine traditionis
impugnat.” Cypriani Epist. ad Pompeium contra epist. Stephani. Op. ed. Fell.
Oxon. 1682. Ep. 74. P. ii. pp. 211—16.—See, also, the Letter of Firmilian,
bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, in approbation of these statements of Cyprian,
which follows this Letter of Cyprian in all the editions of his works.
* The question referred to in the above passage of Cyprian is fully discussed,
vol. i. pp. 312 et seq.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 63
which may properly be believed to have been constituted by the
Apostles, and which are not to be found in Scripture.’ But this,
as far as Cyprian is concerned, only strengthens our cause,
because it shows, that we are under no mistake as to the views
of Cyprian.
And the views advocated in the above passage are abundantly
confirmed in other parts of his works.
Thus, in his Epistle to Cecilius, on the question of using
water only in the eucharist, he writes thus,—‘ Although, dear
“ brother, I am aware, that most of the bishops that by divine
“ favor have been set over the Lord’s Churches in the whole
“‘ world adhere to the directions of the Evangelical truth and
“« Dominical Tradition, and do not depart from that which our
“ Master Christ both commanded and performed, to follow a
“human and upstart ordinance; yet, since some, either igno-
yantly or foolishly, when consecrating the Dominical cup, and
“ ministering to the people, do not do that which Jesus Christ
“our Lord and God, the author and teacher of this sacrifice,
“ did and taught, I have thought it both an act of piety and
“necessity to address this letter to you, that if any one is
“ still held by this error, he may, by seeing the light of truth,
“return to the root and original of the Dominical tradition
« |... Taking the cup on the day of his passion, he blessed
“it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘ Drink ye all of this, for
“ this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many
“ for the remission of sins. I say unto you, [ will not drink
“ henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall
“ drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.’
“ Where we find, that the cup which our Lord offered was mixed.
“and that it was wine which he called his blood. Whence
“ it is evident, that the blood of Christ is not offered, if there
“is no wine in the cup; nor is the Dominical sacrifice duly
“ celebrated, unless our oblation and sacrifice correspond with
1 “Consuetudo ila que opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum [i. e. Apostolorum ]
traditione exordium sumsisse credenda est, sicut sunt multa que universa tenet
Ecclesia, et ob hoc ab Apostolis pracepta bene creduntur, quamquam scripta non
reperiantur.” AvGustTiIN. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. y. ο. 31. Op. ed. Ben.
vol. ix. col. 156.
64 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ the Passion. But how shall we drink new wine of the fruit
“ of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of the Father, if, in
“ the sacrifice of God the Father, and Christ, we do not offer
“wine, and do not mix the cup of the Lord according to the
“ Dominical tradition? Also the blessed Apostle Paul, chosen
“ and sent by the Lord, and appointed a preacher of the evan-
“ eelical truth, delivers the same things in his Epistle, saying,
“ «The Lord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed,
“ took bread,’ &c. [quoting 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.] But if it is
“ ordered by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and
* delivered by his Apostle, that as often as we drink in com-
“ memoration of the Lord, we ought to do that which the Lord
“ also did, we find, that that which is commanded is not ob-
“ served by us, unless we do the very same things which the
“ Lord did, and depart not from the divine precept, mixing the
“cup of the Lord in the same way as he did..... If,
“in the sacrifice which Christ offered, Christ only is to be
“‘ followed, it becomes us to follow, and do that which Christ
«* did, and which he commanded to be done ..... Where-
“ fore if Christ only is to be attended to, we ought not to regard
“ what any of our predecessors thought was to be done, but what
*‘ he who preceded all, namely Christ, first did. For we must
“* not follow the custom of man, but the truth of God......
“ And concerning this, also, let us send letters to our colleagues,
“ that the Evangelical law and the Dominical tradition may be
“ everywhere observed, and a departure not be made from that
“ which Christ both taught and did.’’?
Here, again, in a very similar case to the former, Cyprian
refers to Scripture as the only authoritative guide in the matter.
And there is nothing, perhaps, which more shows how much
the Fathers have often been misrepresented by the Romanists,
than the fact, that they have constantly availed themselves of
1 «Quanquam sciam, frater carissime, episcopos plurimos ecclesiis Dominicis in
toto mundo divina dignatione prepositos Evangelice veritatis ac Dominicz tradi-
tionis tenere rationem, nec ab eo quod Christus magister et precepit et gessit,
humana et novella institutione decedere; tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter
vel simpliciter in calice Dominico sanctificando et plebi ininistrando non hoe
faciunt, quod Jesus Christus, Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii hujus auctor et
doctor, fecit et docuit ; religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi, has ad vos literas
facere, ut si quis in isto errore adhuc teneatur, veritatis luce perspecta ad radicem
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 65
the word “tradition” in this, and the preceding passage, to
make men believe that Cyprian was a supporter of their views
of Patristical Tradition. That it is a misrepresentation, and
that the Romanists are in the habit of making it, is admitted
by Lumper himself, who says,—“ When catholic theologians
“ endeavour to prove the existence of divine traditions from the
“holy Fathers, they quote, in proof of them, the following
“ passages from St. Cyprian.” And he instances the learned
Ceillier (Hist. gener. des Auteurs. tom. 2. p. 165 et seq.)
“ But,” he adds, “by the leave of that most learned man and
“ others, I must say, that neither in this, nor the preceding
* passages, do St. Cyprian’s words refer to divine traditions,
** distinct from Holy Scripture. Any one will easily be convinced
“ of the truth of this my assertion, if he will only at his leisure read
“ the whole of the letters quoted ...... .. CYPRIAN ACKNOW-
“ LEDGED NO OTHER TRADITION THAN WHAT IS CONTAINED IN
“que Scriptures... . And the illustrious Ceillier is both
atque originem traditionis Dominice revertatur ....Calicem sub die passionis
accipiens, benedixit, et dedit discipulis suis, dicens; ‘ Bibite ex hoc omnes; hic
est enim sanguis Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem pec-
catorum. Dicovobis, non bibam ἃ modo ex ista creatura vitis usque in diem illum
quo vobiscum bibam novum vinum in regno Patris mei.’ Qua in parte inve-
nimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, et vinum fuisse quod san-
guinem suum dixit. Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum
ealici; nec sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio
et sacrificium nostrum responderit passioni. Quomodo autem de creatura vitis
novum vinum cum Christo in regno Patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei Patris et
Christi vinum non offerimus, nec calicem Domini Dominica traditione miscemus ?
Beatus quoque Apostolus Paulus a Domino electus et missus, et predicator veri-
tatis Evangelice constitutus, hec eadem in Epistola sua ponit, dicens; ‘ Dominus
Jesus, in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem,’ ἄς. [1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.] Quod si
et a Domino precipitur, et ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur et traditur, ut
quotiescumque biberimus in commemorationem Domini hoc faciamus, quod fecit
et Dominus, invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatumest, nisi eadem que
Dominus fecit, nos quoque faciamus, et calicem Domini pari ratione miscentes a
divino magisterio non recedamus .. .. Si in sacrificio quod Christus. obtulerit, non
nisi Christus sequendus est, utique id nos obaudire et facere oportet, quod Christus
fecit, et quod faciendum esse mandavit .. .. Quare si solus Christus audiendus est,
non debemus attendere, quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui
ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi
oportet, sed Dei veritatem.... Et de hoe quoque ad collegas nostros literas diri-
gamus, ut ubique lex Evangelica et traditio Dominica servetur, et ab eo quod
Christus et docuit et fecit non recedatur.” Cyprian Epist. ad Cacilium. Op.
ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. Ep. 63. P. 2. pp. 148—57.
VOL, IIl. F
66 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“‘ mistaken, and leads others into error, when he asserts, that
“δι. Cyprian defends infant baptism by the authority of Tra-
* dition ; since the contrary is obvious, from the letter of the
“ holy bishop to Fidus, where he defends the baptism of infants
“« by the clearest reasons, derived from holy Scripture, without
“ making any mention of Tradition.”?
Such is the testimony of one who was himself a Romanist,
after which I think there can be no doubt what are the views
supported by Cyprian.
As connected, however, with our present subject, I would
commend the following passages to the attention of the reader.
“That they may understand from you, and be structed, and
“ learn what ecclesiastical discipline demands, according to the
*< dictates of the Scriptures.’’*
“This happens, dear brethren, in consequence of a return not
“ being made to the source of the truth, and the fountain-head
* not being sought, nor the doctrine of our heavenly Master
“ being adhered to. Which if any one considers and examines,
“ there will be no need of a long discussion and arguments.”
“ Wherefore we also, holding a middle course, and contem-
“ plating the Lord’s balance, and meditating on the mercy and
1“ Quando Theologi Catholici existentiam traditionum divinarum ex SS.
Patribus probare conantur, sequentia ex S. Cypriano loca proiisdem comprobandis
adducunt ....Sed pace hujus doctissimi viri aliorumque dixerim, neque in hoc
neque in precedentibus locis S. Cyprianum de traditionibus divinis a Scriptura
sacra distinctis serrmonem habere. De hujus asserti mei veritate quilibet facile
convincetur, si laudatas Epistolas per otium integre evolvere voluerit.... Nul-
lam aliam traditionem agnoscebat Cyprianus quam que in Scripturis continetur,
Fallitur autem et fallit Cl. Ceillierius dum asserit S. Cyprianum Pzedobaptismum
per traditionis auctoritatem defendisse ; siquidem contrarium ad oculum patet ex
Epistola sancti antistitis ad Fidum in ordine Baluziano 59, ubi baptisma infantium
preclarissimis rationum momentis e Scriptura sacra depromtis nulla traditionis
facta mentione defendit.” Lumprer Hist. Theol.—Crit. de vita, ἄς. Patrum.
Aug. Vind. 1785 et seq. vol. xi. pp. 521—3.
2 “ Ut sciant ex vobis, et instruantur, et discant, quid secundum Scripturarum
magisterium ecclesiastica disciplina deposcat.” Cypr. Ep. ad clerum de cura
paup. &. Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 14. p. 32.
3 “ Hoc eo fit, fratres dilectissimi, dum ad veritatis originem non reditur, nec
caput queritur, nec magistri ccelestis doctrina servatur. Que si quis consideret
et examinet, tractatu longo atque argumentis opus non est.” In. De unit. Eccles.
Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. P. 1. p. 105. On the fraudulent corruption of this
Treatise by the Romanists, see James’s Corruption of Scripture and Fathers.
Part 2. init.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 67
“ compassion of God the Father, after much and long discussion
“with each other, held a steady course between extremes in
“ determining what was to be done.”
** We came together, and after the Scriptures had been cited
“for a long time on both sides, we, with a happy moderation,
“ determined upon a middle course.” *
“1 have received your letters, dear brother, which are truly
* sensible and full of integrity and faith. Nor am I surprised,
“ that being well versed and skilful in the Dominical Scriptures,
* you do all things prudently and advisedly.”*
Lacrantivs. (fl. a. 303.)
Proceeding to Lactantius, we are told, that “ the faith consists
of that which is contained in the divine Scriptures.’’4
Evusesius or Casares. (fl. a. 315.)
Our next witness is the learned Eusebius of Cesarea ; who,
though not apparently in all respects orthodox,® may, I suppose,
be considered a witness not to be despised on the question before
us.
In his Letter to the people of his own Diocese concerning the
Council of Nice, he thus speaks of the Anathema which that
1 « Propter quod et nos temperamentum tenentes, et libram Domini contem-
plantes, et Dei Patris pietatem ac misericordiam cogitantes, din multumque
tractatu inter nos habito, justa moderamine agenda libravimus.” Ib, Ep. ad Max.
Presb. &e. Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 54. P. 2. p. 100.
2 «Jn unum convenimus, et Scripturis diu ex utraque parte prolatis tempera-
mentum salubri moderatione libravimus.” Ip. Ep. ad Antonian. Op. ed. Fell.
Ep. 55. P. 2. p. 102.
3 “ Accepimus literas tuas, frater carissime, satis sobrias et integritatis ac fidei
plenas. Nec miramur, si exercitatus et in Scripturis Dominicis peritus caute
omnia et consulte geras.” Ip. Ep. ad Caldon. Op. ed. Fell. Ox. 1682. Ep. 25.
P. 2. p. 50.
4 “ Quod quia ille [i.e.Cyprianus} non fecit, raptus eximia ernditione divi-
narum literarum, ut iis solis contentus esset, quibus fides constat, accessi, Deo
inspirante, ut ego facerem,” &. Lacrant. Diy. Instit. lib. v. ὁ. 4. Op. ed. Cant.
1685. p. 243. ed. Paris. 1748. vol. i. p. 372.
5 Many of the antients, and some of the moderns, speak of him as a ring-
leader among the Arians. This, however, is evidently unfair, as he expressly
repudiated the statements of Arius as to the Son, though his notions on the sub-
ject do not appear to have been strictly orthodox. Dv Pin and Cavs, the latter
particularly, will give full information on the point. q
F2
68 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Council annexed to the Creed which it published ;—‘ Moreover
“ we considered the anathematism published by them at the end
“ of the Creed to be unobjectionable, inasmuch as it prohibits the
“use of expressions not found in the Scriptures, through which
“has come nearly all the confusion and disturbance that has
“arisen in the Church. No part, therefore, of Holy Scripture
“ having used the phrase, ‘out of nothing,’ or ‘ there was a time
“ when he was not,’ or those which follow, it appeared improper
“ to say or teach these things; to which, as appearing reason-
“able, we assented.”! Can anything show more clearly, how
completely Scripture was made the sole authoritative Rule of
faith by Eusebius, and, as far as his testimony goes, by the Bishops
at Nice? We shall hereafter see, that the introduction of the
word “ consubstantial” into their Confession is not inconsistent
with this decision, for that word was made use of as one imme-
diately flowing from the language of Scripture, and only equi-
valent to that which was clearly expressed in Scripture.
Again ; in the disputation with the Philosopher in the Council
of Nice recorded by Gelasius, Eusebius, replying in the name
of the bishops there assembled, makes in one of his answers the
following observations,—“ Believe those things which are written,
* the things which are not written, neither consider nor inquire
* after ;” and shortly after, having expounded what he considered
the true doctrine respecting the Son, he adds, “which we,
“knowing by faith, preach according to the teaching of the Holy
““ Scriptures.””?
1 Kal τὸν ἀναθεματισμὸν δὲ τὸν μετὰ Thy πίστιν πρὸς αὐτῶν ἐκτεθέντα, ἄλυπον
εἶναι ἡγησάμεθα, διὰ τὸ ἀπείργειν ἀγράφοις χρήσασθαι φωναῖς" διὸ σχεδὸν ἣ πᾶσα
γέγονε σύὐγχυσίς τε καὶ ἀκαταστασία τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν" μηδεμιᾶς γοῦν θεοπνεύστου
γραφῆς τὸ, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ τὸ, ἣν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐπιλεγομένοις
κεχρημένης, οὐκ εὔλογον ἐφάνη ταῦτα λέγειν καὶ διδάσκειν. ᾧ καὶ αὐτῷ καλῶς
δόξαντι συνεθέμεθα. ἘΒΕΒΙΙ Epist. ad Cesariens. in Socrar. Hist. Eccles.
lib. i. ce. 8. Inter Hist. Eccles. Grac. ed. Reading. vol. ii. p. 26. See also
THEODORET. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 12; and, Grnas. Cyzro. Comment. Act.
Cone. Nic. P. 2. c. 36. ed. Balf. p. 185.
2 Τοῖς γεγραμμένοις πίστευε, τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα μὴ ἐννόει, μηδὲ ζήτει ......
ὅπερ ἡμεῖς πίστει νοοῦντες κηρύττομεν, κατὰ τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν.
Evses. ad Philosoph. in Grnas. Cyzic. Comment. Act. Cone. Nie. P. 2. ο. 19.
ed. Balf. Lutet. 1599. p.124. It is right that I should here add, that some
modern authors have doubted the authenticity of the statements made by Gelasius
as to what took place in the Council of Nice, that is, those which rest upon his
authority alone. The Romanists, in particular, find it convenient to call his
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 69
Still more plainly in the Preface to his Oration in praise of
the Emperor Constantine, in which he discourses at large re-
specting God and his providence, the incarnation of our Saviour,
and the blessings we derive through him, he speaks of the Holy
Scriptures as our great Teacher in these points. “Let the de-
“clarations of the Oracles, not those uttered by divination or
‘rather foolish madness, but those uttered by the light of
“ divine inspiration, be our teachers in the sacred mysteries ;
“ [let them teach us] concerning the kingdom itself, and con-
“ cerning the supreme King, and the divine Guard which sur-
“ rounds the universal King; as also concerning that example
“ of royalty which is among us, and concerning that which
“ falsely counterfeits its character ; and those things which ac-
“ company each rank. From these [oracles] therefore, having
“learnt the sacrifices suitable to God, as from some Hiero-
“ phantz, let us thus commence handling the divine mysteries.””!
Tue Covncit or Nice, or, Nic#a.? (a. 825.)
From Eusebius let us pass on to the consideration of the pro-
ceedings at the great Council of Nice, or, Niczea, (in Bithynia,)
and see what is the testimony borne by the conduct of that as-
sembly to the subject under discussion.
The Tractators, with the Romanists, would fain make us
believe, that the Fathers there assembled, pronounced judg-
ment, not directly from Scripture, but from the interpretation
given to Scripture by Ecclesiastical Tradition. Mr. Keble, in
statements in question. As to this particular passage, therefore, I leave the
matter to the reader’s judgment. See respecting Gelasius, Mirzr Auctarium
De Scriptor. Eccles. p. 21. in Fasric, Biblioth. Eccles. Hamb. 1718. and Cave,
Hist. Liter.
' Λογίων δὲ χρησμοὶ, οὐκ ἐκ μαντείας μᾶλλον ἢ μανίας παράφρονος, φωτὸς δ᾽
ἐπιπνοίας ἐνθέου προσπεφωνημένοι, τῶν τελείων ἡμῖν γενέσθωσαν διδάσκαλοι" ἀμφὶ
βασιλείας αὐτῆς" ἀμφί τε βασιλέως τοῦ ἀνωτάτου" δορυφορίας τε θείας, ἀμφὶ
τὸν πάντων βασιλέα: τοῦ τε καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικοῦ παραδείγματος, καὶ τοῦ τὸ
χάραγμα κεκιβδηλευμένου" τῶν θ᾽ ἑκατέρῳ συνομαρτούντων τάγματι' οἷς δὴ τὰς
θεοπρεπεῖς τελετὰς ἱεροφαντούμενοι, ὡδέπη θείων ὀργίων ἐφαψώμεθα. EUSEB.
Pref. ad Orat. in laud. Constant. Inter Hist. Eccles. Greece. ed. Reading. vol. i.
p- 716.
2 Tuse the name “Nice” as that? which has been ordinarily used by English
divines, but “ Nicswea” is the more correct name,
70 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
particular, has devoted many pages to the endeavour to prove,
that the Nicene Fathers were “ earnest and constant in resort-
“ing to Tradition in order to decide among conflicting inter-
“ pretations of Scripture, and settle the fundamentals of our
“‘ most holy faith ;” (p. 141 ;) and asserts, that they “ went to
“« Church-Tradition for the critical and decisive phrase ‘of one
** substance with the Father; ” (p. 138 ;) all which, I hope to
prove, is very far from a correct representation of what there
took place.
I shall, first, give the reader some extracts from the accounts
remaining to us of the proceedings of this Council, and then
offer a few observations on what appear to me the very incorrect
and delusive statements of Mr. Keble.
After an address on the part of the bishops to the Emperor
Constantine, the discussion was opened by a speech from Con-
stantine to the assembly, at the close of which he makes the
following remarks,—“It would be grievous,” he says, “ yea,
“very grievous, our enemies being destroyed, and no one
“ daring to oppose us, that we should wound one another, and
“ afford pleasure and laughter to our adversaries. And especially
“‘ when we are discussing divine things, and have the teaching of
“ the most holy Spirit fully committed to writing. For, the Evan-
“ gelical and Apostolical books, and the oracles of the antient
“ Prophets, CLEARLY AND FULLY TEACH Us, what should be our
“ views respecting the Godhead. Let us, therefore, banish hostile
* contention, and TAKE THE SOLUTION OF THE POINTS IN QUES-
“ TION FROM THE WORDS OF DIVINE INSPIRATION.”*
Such were the sentiments of the Emperor Constantine, who
was at that time not a novice in the Christian faith, and who
1 Δεινὸν εἴη, καὶ ἄγαν δεινὸν, τῶν πολεμίων καταλυθέντων, καὶ μηδενὸς ἄντι-
τείνειν τολμῶντος, ἀλλήλους βάλλειν, καὶ τοῖς δυσμενέσιν ἡδονὴν καὶ γέλωτα
προξενεῖν" ἄλλως τε καὶ περὶ θείων διαλεγομένους πραγμάτων, καὶ τοῦ παναγίον
Πνεύματος τὴν διδασκαλίαν ἀνάγραπτον ἔχοντας. Ἐὐαγγελικαὶ γὰρ, φησὶ, βίβλοι
καὶ ᾿Αποστολικαὶ, καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν προφητῶν τὰ θεσπίσματα, σαφῶς ἡμᾶς ἃ χρὴ
περὶ τοῦ Θείου φρονεῖν ἐκπαιδεύουσι. Τὴν πολεμοποιὸν οὖν ἄπελάσαντες ἔριν,
ἐκ τῶν θεοπνεύστων λόγων λάβωμεν τῶν ζητουμένων τὴν λύσιν. THEODORET.
Hist. Eccles, lib. i. c. 6. Op. ed. Schulz. Hale, 1769 et seq. vol. iii. p. 757.
(Inter Hist. Eccles, Gree. ed. Reading. tom. iii. p. 26, 27. lib.i. c.7.) See, also,
GeLasii Cyzic. Comment. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. ii. c. 7, ed. Balf. Lutet. 1599,
pp. 84, 5.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 71
had certainly enjoyed every advantage of instruction in it. A tes-
timony more decisively in favor of the views for which we are
contending could not have been pronounced, and whatever slight
may have been put upon it by Bellarmine, in saying that Con-
stantine was a great Emperor, but not a great doctor, or by
Mr. Keble in passing it over in silence, there will be those who
will regard it as evidence of something more than the mere
private notion of an individual ; not to mention, that it is stated
by Theodoret, that, immediately upon the conclusion of this
speech, “ the greater part of the Synod assented to what he had
said,”! and that the language in which he is spoken of by all
who have written concerning him, point him out as no mean
_authority in the matter. I need hardly observe, how completely
this language proves, that the Emperor Constantine recognised
no other record of revelation or inspired teaching but the Holy
Scriptures.
But further; we are not without ample evidence of the way
in which the discussion was conducted. It will be remembered,
that the points in question, and upon which the Council was
called to decide, were those which had been mooted by Arius ;
and of the conduct of the discussion on these points we
have the following clear and particular account given us by
Athanasius,
“ The assembled bishops being desirous to reject the impious
“ phrases invented by the Arians, namely, [that the Son was
“ created] ‘ from things that were not,’ and the saying, ‘ that the
“ Son is a being created and made,’ and ‘ there was a time when
“he was not,’ and that ‘he is of a changeable nature,’ and
“ to write words that were confessedly words of Scripture ; namely,
“ that the only-begotten Word is of God by nature, the Power,
“ the alone Wisdom of the Father, the true God, as John said;
“and as Paul has written, the brightness of the glory and the
“image of the Father’s substance ; the followers of Eusebius
“ [of Nicomedia], being led astray by their own erroneous
“notions, said among themselves,—Let us assent to these
“‘ things, for even we also are of God, for ‘there is one God of
“ whom are all things,’ and ‘ old things are passed away, behold
1 Τῆς συνόδου τὸ πλεῖστον τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐπείθετο, THEODORET. cod. loc,
72 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ all things are become new, but all things are of God’ And
“ they thought also of that which is written in ‘The Shepherd,’
“ ¢ First of all believe, that there is one God, who created and
“ verfected all things, and brought them into existence out of
“ nothing.’ But the bishops seeing their deceitfulness and
impious artfulness, used a plainer expression than ‘ of God,’
“and wrote, that the Son was ‘of the substance of God ;’ so
“ that creatures, from their not being produced from themselves
“ without a cause, but having a beginning of their existence,
“ might be said to be of God, but the Son only to be properly
“ of the substance of the Father, for this is peculiar to the only-
“ begotten and true Word with respect to the Father. And
“ this was the reason why those words were written ‘of the sub-
“ stance.’ Again, the bishops asking those who appeared to be
“a small party, if they would say, that the Son was not a
“ creature, but the Power, the alone Wisdom of the Father, and
* his eternal image, like to the Father in all things, and true
““ God, the Eusebians were caught intimating to one another,
“ that these things also apply to us, for ever. we also are said to
“‘ be the image and glory of God,” &e..... “ But here also the
“ bishops, having observed their deceit, collected together out of
“ the Scriptures these words, the brightness, the fountain and the
“river, and the image of the substance, and that expression, ‘ In
“ thy light shall we see light,” and that, ‘I and my Father are
“ one,’ and then at last they wrote more plainly and compendiously,
*« thai the Son was consubstantial with the Father, for all the pre-
** ylous expressions have this meaning.” +
1 τῶν συνελθόντων ἐπισκόπων βουλομένων τὰς μὲν παρὰ τῶν Ἀρειανῶν ἐφευ-
ρεθείσας τῆς ἀσεβείας λέξεις ἀνελεῖν: τὸ, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων" καὶ τὸ λέγειν κτίσμα καὶ
14 ε <7 A a 5 > “ ~ > , A A ~
ποίημα τὸν υἱόν" Kal, ἣν ποτὲ, ὅτε οὐκ Hy Kad ὅτι τρεπτῆς ἐστι φύσεως" τὰς δὲ τῶν
γραφῶν ὁμολογουμένας γράψαι: ὅτι τε ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ φύσει μονογενής ἐστιν ὃ
λόγος, δύναμις, σοφία μόνη τοῦ Πατρὺς, θεὸς ἀληθινὸς, ὡς εἶπεν ὃ Ἰωάννης" καὶ ὡς
ἔγραψεν ὃ Παῦλος, ἀπαυγάσμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστά-
σεως" οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας κακοδοξίας ἑλκόμενοι, διελάλουν ἀλλήλοις"
συνθώμεθα: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν" εἷς γὰρ θεὺς, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα: καὶ,
4.3 ~ -“ > Αἴ , εὖ ͵ Ul x A i > ~ σι >
τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονε TA πάντα Kava τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ" ἐλο-
γίζντο δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ Ποιμένι γραφέν: πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὃ
θεὸς, ὃ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποίησας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι.
᾿Αλλ᾽ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι θεωρήσαντες τὴν πανουργίαν ἐκείνων, καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀσεβείας
κακοτεχνίαν, λευκότερον εἰρήκασι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἔγραψαν, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν, ἵνα τὰ μὲν κτίσματα, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν χωρὶς αἰτίου εἶναι,
~
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 79
This account is repeated by Athanasius in another place in
almost the same words, the last sentence being, if possible, still
more clear in proof of the cause being determined directly from
Scripture. “ But the bishops having observed their hypocrisy
“jin this... . . were compelled again to collect the sense of
“ the matter from the Scriptures, and to repeat in plainer words
“ what they had said before, and write that the Son was con-
* substantial with the Father.”!
How, with this clear and particular account of the mode in
which the discussion was conducted, any one can affirm, that the
matter was determined by a reference to the traditional inter-
pretation of the Church, is almost inconceivable. And yet, in
the face of these passages, Mr. Keble scruples not to state,
that “the three hundred bishops who joined in its [i. e. the
“ Nicene Creed’s] promulgation, did not profess to have col-
“lected it out of the Bible, but simply to express the faith
* which each of them had found in the Chureh which he re-
“ presented, received by tradition from the Apostles.” (p. 35.) !
And these passages, containing a plain and clear account of the
way im which the discussion was conducted, though occurring in
ἀλλὰ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τοῦ γενέσθαι, λέγηται ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. ὃ δὲ vids μόνος ἴδιος τῆς τοῦ
Πατρὸς οὐσίας' τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον μονογενοῦς καὶ ἀληθινοῦ λόγου πρὸς Πατέρα.
Καὶ περὶ μὲν τοῦ γεγράφθαι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ἣ πρόφασις αὕτη. Πάλιν δὲ τῶν ἐπισ-
κόπων ἐρωτώντων τοὺς δοκοῦντας ὀλίγους, εἴπερ λέγοιεν, τὸν υἱὸν οὐ κτίσμα, ἀλλὰ
δύναμιν, σοφίαν μόνην τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ εἱκόνα ἀΐδιον, ἀπαράλλακτον κατὰ πάντα
τοῦ Πατρὺς, καὶ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν, κατελήφθησαν οἱ περὶ Ἐὐσέβιον διανεύοντες ἀλλή-
λοις, ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα φθάνει καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς, καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς, καὶ εἴκων καὶ δόξα θεοῦ
λεγόμεθα, kK. τ. A. .... ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἐνταῦθα οἱ ἐπίσκοποι θεωρήσαντες ἐκείνων
τὸ δόλιον, συνήγαγον ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, τήν τε πηγὴν καὶ τὸν ποτα-
μὸν, καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν, καὶ τὸ, ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὄψομεθα φῶς,
καὶ τὸ, ἐγὼ καὶ 6 Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν" καὶ λευκότερον λοιπὸν καὶ συντόμως ἔγραψαν,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν" τὰ γὰρ προειρημένα πάντα ταύτην ἔχει τὴν σημασίαν.
ΑΤΉΑΝΑΒ. Ad Afros Epise. Epist. §§ 5, 6. Op. ed. Bened. tom. i. P. 2. pp.
895, 6. This passage is quoted by THEODORET, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. ὁ. 7. (c. 8. ed.
Reading.)
1°AAN of ἐπίσκοποι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ θεωρήσαντες Thy ὑπόκρισιν ἐκείνων, καὶ ὅτι,
κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, ἐν καρδίαις τῶν ἀσεβῶν δόλος ἐστὶ τεκταινομένων κακὰ,
ἠναγκάσθησαν καὶ αὐτοὶ αὖθις συναγαγεῖν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἅπερ
πρότερον ἔλεγον, ταῦτα πάλιν λευκότερον εἰπεῖν, καὶ γράψαι, ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ
Πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν. ATHANAS. De Decret. Synod. Nic. § 20. tom. i. pp. 225, 6. In
accordance with this statement of Athanasius, it is said by Phebadius, “ Quid
egistis, O beatze memorize viri, qui ex omnibus orbis partibus Niceeam congregati,
et sacris voluminibus pertractis perfectam fidei Catholic regulam circuminspecto
sermone fecistis.” PaHmBaD. Contr. Arian, lib. i. § 6. Bibl, Patrum, ed. Galland.
tom. v. p. 251.
74. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Treatises from which Mr. Keble has quoted, are passed over n
complete silence; and his evidence as to the conduct of the
debate is derived wholly from inferences drawn from indirect
sources of information. The case is so important, that it may
be worth while to sift that evidence, and it will afford an op-
portunity of strengthening the conclusions to which the pre-
ceding extracts necessarily lead.
The representation which Mr. Keble has given us of the
matter is this ; “ The method of proceeding at Niczea appears to
“have been nearly as follows; each bishop was required to
“ yehearse the faith which he and his Church professed, and
*‘ into which they were baptized,” and when all, with but few
exceptions, “agreed substantially in the orthodox interpreta-
tion,” “the burthen of proof was of course thrown on the here-
*‘ siarch, and he was required to make good his theory by
“ allegations from Scripture,” “ but his allegations being over-
“ thrown by large arguments from Scripture itself, the ortho-
“ dox creed was considered as sufficiently established,” and
“ the orthodox TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION was incorporated
“into a written creed, being first thoroughly vindicated both
“in the substance and wording of it, and also in the annexed
“ anathema, by reasoning out of Holy Writ. The result was
“ the Nicene Creed with its anathema.” (pp. 119, 20.)
Now, the whole of this statement as to the bishops “re-
hearsing their faith,” and this “ orthodox traditional interpreta-
tion,” in which they “ agreed substantially,” being “ incorpo-
rated into a written creed,” is a pure fiction, utterly destitute of
any testimony in its favor im all the various accounts given us
by the antients of this Council, and clearly opposed to the ac-
counts quoted above of its proceedings. Not one of those who
have left us an account of this Council, has given us the slight-
est hint that the bishops there assembled so gave in their Con-
fessions of faith; and Bishop Taylor, after saying, “it is not
“ certain that they at their meeting recited any other Creed
“ than the Apostolical,” adds, “ for that they did not, Lauren-
“ tius Valla, a Canon in the Lateran Church, affirms, that him-
““ self hath read in the antient books of Isidore, who collected
“ the canons of the antient councils.”!
1 Works, ed. Heber, x. 462.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 75
Further, as to the notion that these Creeds, containing the
“ orthodox traditional interpretation,” were incorporated, and
thus formed the Nicene Creed, we have demonstrative evidence
that it is incorrect ; for Eusebius, in his Letter to his own Dio-
cese, giving an account of the proceedings of the Council, gives
us the Creed which he proposed to the Council as that which he
had received from the bishops who had preceded him and his
early instructors, and had professed at baptism, and “ learned
from the Holy Scriptures,” and which he tells us was approved
(i.e. as far as it went) by the bishops there assembled, and in
which those very phrases, which alone were obnoxious to the
Arian party, and were controverted m the Council, were not to
be found; and which is condemned by Athanasius as unsatisfac-
tory on the points in question ;+ and by the extracts given above
from Athanasius, we see clearly, in what way, and by what con-
siderations, the Council was induced to add to this proposed
and approved Creed of Eusebius the words which alone decisively
condemned the heresy of Arius, and in which more particularly
the Nicene Creed differs from the Apostolical, namely, by
reasoning drawn directly from Scripture. Indeed it is obvious,
that if the baptismal Creeds of the Churches had contained a
condemnation of the errors of Arius, there would have been no
need of the Council of Nice. Nay, Mr. Keble himself tells us,
that “additions” were made at Nice to “ the old baptismal
Creed.” (pp. 1387, 8.) How, then, can he say at the same time,
that the Nicene Creed is merely an incorporation of a number
of different forms of “the old baptismal Creed?” And further,
the agreement of the bishops assembled at Nice respecting
the doctrine there debated upon, is expressly attributed by
Constantine to their being under the influence of the Holy
Spirit.”
. Let us see, then, in what way Mr. Keble attempts to defend
his view of the matter.
“First,” he says, “there is the general presumption in favour
of it.” (p. 121.) A most extraordinary argument, surely, to begin
with, in a matter which must rest upon testimony, and which
bodes ill for what follows.
1 See ArHanas. De Decret. Synod. Nic. § 3. tom. i, pp. 210, 11.
2 See Sockar. Hist. Eccl. i. 9.
76 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
He then refers to the circular letter of Alexander, Patriarch
of Alexandria, giving notice of his condemnation of Arius, and
that which he wrote on the same subject to Alexander, Patriarch
of Constantinople; and having given two extracts, says,
«Thus much may suffice to show the opinion of the venerable
“« Alexander concerning the best way of dealing with the con-
“ troversy which led to the Nicene Council.” (p. 123.) But these
extracts do anything but suffice to show this, for they would
give the reader a very erroneous view of the matter. For the
extract from the first letter is merely this,—“ Who ever heard
“ such things? or who now hearing them, is not astonished,
“ and stoppeth his ears, that the contamination of these words
“ may not touch his hearing ?”
But Alexander proceeds thus,—“ For, who is there, who,
“‘ when he hears John saying, ‘ In the beginning was the word,’
“ does not condemn these men, saying, ‘ There was a time when
“he was not’? Or who, hearing in the Gospel, ‘the only-
“ begotten Son,’ and ‘ by him all things were made,’ will not
“ abhor these men when they declare that he is a creature ?”
And then having proceeded to adduce many other passages of
Scripture in behalf of the orthodox faith, he adds,—“Saying
“ these things, and unfolding the divine Scriptures, we oftentimes
“ overthrew them, and then, like chameleons, they immediately
“ changed their ground.”! Now, “thus much” may “ suffice
“to show the opinion of the venerable Alexander concerning
“the best way of dealing with the controversy,” and that
that opinion was, that it was to be decided by a reference to Scrip-
ture and Scripture only, for to that only does he refer. And so
Theodoret says of him, that “he following the divine oracles,
said that the Son is equally to be honoured with the Father,
“and that he is of the same substance with the Father who
“ begot him; but Arius, fighting against the truth, called him a
““ being created and made.’’?
1 Kal ταῦτα λέγοντες, καὶ ἀναπτύσσοντες Tas θείας γραφὰς, πολλάκις ἂνετρέ-
ψαμεν αὐτούς" καὶ πάλιν ὡς χαμαιλέοντες μετεβάλλοντος. ALEXANDRI Epist. ad
fratres qui ubique gentium sunt, in Socrat. Hist. Ecel. lib. i. ο. 6. (al. 8.) ed.
Reading. p. 13; and in Getas. Cyzio. lib. ii. c. 3. pp. 56, 7.
2 Kal 6 μὲν [i. 6, ᾿Αλεξάνδρος) τοῖς θείοις λόγοις ἑπόμενος, ὁμότιμον ἔλεγε
τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν τῷ γεγεννηκότι Θεῷ" ὁ δὲ “Apetos
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 77
With respect to the second letter) I know not what advan-
tage Mr. Keble can suppose his cause to gain by it, for he
himself allows, that the refutation contained in it of Arian
errors is derived solely from Scripture. But, it is said by Mr.
Keble, he concludes with “a distinct enunciation of his own
“ and his Church’s faith, conceived in such terms, and with
“ such arrangement, as evidently show it to be a paraphrase on
“ the baptismal or Apostolical Creed then in use at Alexandria.”
(p. 123.) What then? May we not repeat the Apostolical or
Nicene Creed, as containing our belief, without its being sup-
posed that we accept them on the ground of the authority of
ecclesiastical Tradition, and not on the ground of our belief in
their conformity to Scripture? Nay, the words of Alexander
himself preclude all doubt as to his view of the subject, for he
expressly refers the Creed which he gives to the teaching of the
Holy Scriptures. “ Besides this religious opinion concerning
“ the Father and Son, as the Sacred Scriptures teach, we confess
“one Holy Ghost,” &e. The form of words in which he ex-
pressed his belief might be similar to that of many who lived
before him ; but the sole authority upon which he spoke was
the testimony of Holy Scripture. So the orthodox Presbyters
who opposed Noetus, after giving a statement of their faith
almost in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, add, “These are
* the doctrines we profess, having LEARNT them from the divine
“ Scriptures, and these doctrines we believe.”’?
His next reference is to Athanasius, to whom he refers as
supporting the position that we are to go to Tradition as our
authoritative teacher as to what is the faith, and then find, as
we may, the proof in Scripture; and hence deduces the in-
ference, that the Council of Nice, in which Athanasius took so
prominent a part, must have also acted upon this principle.
This inference we might fairly leave to its fate, after the quota-
tions given above respecting the actual proceedings of the
Council; but I will just observe, that the only two passages
ἄντικρυς τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μαχόμενος, κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα mpoonydpeve. THEOD. Hist.
Eccl. lib. i. c. 1. Op. ed. Schulz. tom. iii. p. 726. (ed. Reading. lib. i. ο. 2. p. 7.)
1 See TuEop. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 3. (c. 4. ed, Reading.)
2 Ταῦτα λέγομεν μεμαθηκότες ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν, ἃ καὶ ἐπιστάμεθα. See
Epipnan. Ady. her, in her, ὅ7. ὃ 1. Op. ed. Petav. tom. i. p. 480,
78 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
quoted from Athanasius, which would seem to prove that such
was his view, are the two upon which we have already com-
mented in a preceding chapter, to which therefore I refer the
reader.!
“Proceeding,” says Mr. Keble, “to the few details which
“ yemain of what took place in the Council, we find nothing to
“ contradict, and much to strengthen the idea, that not only
« St. Athanasius’s doctrine, but also his mode of establishing it,
“ was there sanctioned.” Here, then, we might fairly expect
some notice of the passages we have given above from Athana-
sius, describing “‘ what took place in the Council.” But to these
not the most remote allusion is made, and we hear of nothing but
some circumstances and remarks incidental to the discussion,
which prove nothing. The first is an observation of Sozomen
relating to what took place at a meeting of the bishops a few
days before the Council was opened. ‘“ Some,” he says, “ were
* for discouraging all innovation on the faith delivered down
“from the beginning; those especially whose simplicity of
“ character taught them, without nice inquiry, to accept the
“faith in God. Others were peremptory, that it was wrong,
* without trial, to follow after the more antient opinions.”
Upon which Mr. Keble remarks, “ In a word, the question lay
““ between traditive and private interpretation. Which of the
“ two prevailed, Sozomen does not expressly say; but he does
“ say, that this preliminary discussion proved an effectual trial
“* of the skill of the principal debaters on each side ; and that
* from that time St. Athanasius being there in attendance on
““ Alexander, obtained the lead in the proceedings of the Council.
* This does not look as if Athanasius had failed in the prelimi-
“‘ nary debate, and we know which side he must have taken
erat ate
Such is another of the far-fetched extraordinary arguments by
which, keeping out of sight the account given by Athanasius of the
actual proceedings, our author would support his view of the
1 See vol. i. pp. 65—71.
* SozomeEN. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. e. 17. (al. 16.) sub fin. Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree.
ed. Reading. tom. ii. pp. 35, 36.
3 ΚΈΒΙ ΕΒ Serm. pp. 128, 9.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 79
conduct of this Council. According to him, then, the Council
thought it right, “ without trial, to follow after the more antient
opinions,’ and contented themselves with simply following
Church-Tradition. Now, not to mention the real facts of the
case, as given by Athanasius, the very author here quoted by
Mr. Keble tells us just after, that there was a long disputation
concerning the faith, and that at last they all agreed together,
and decreed that the Son was consubstantial with the Father,
except a few ;'—which passage alone might have led him to doubt
the soundness of his far-fetched inference. And the Emperor
Constantine, in his Letter to the Churches respecting the Council,
distinctly says, that all the points in dispute were thoroughly
searched into, until a determination acceptable to God was brought
to light.*
His next argument is, however, still more extraordinary.
* Moreover, Sozomen goes on to record, in immediate connec-
tion with this discussion, the well-known anecdote of the aged
“ and unlearned confessor, who silenced a pagan disputer, present
“ at the Council, by the bare recital of his baptismal Creed ;” and
having given the anecdote, he adds,— Not to dwell on the
“ possibility that here is something of a DIVINE SANCTION GIVEN
“TO THE APPEAL TO ANTIQUITY, WHICH OUR ARGUMENT SUP-
“ poss, even the lowest statement, that of Socrates, implies a
“ decided preference there given to traditional over private in-
* terpretations. It shows what bias the Fathers were under the
“ day before the Council was holden.”? Ifthis reasoning were
correct, it would follow, that we cannot refer to the Creed as
expressing our belief, without showing, to a demonstration, that
we uphold Mr. Keble’s views of Tradition. But the fact is, that
1 Ἔκ τούτου δὲ ἣ περὶ τοῦ δόγματος διάλεξις ἐκινήθῃ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι: Σχολῇ δὲ
καὶ μάλα ἀνεξικάκως ἠκροᾶτο ὃ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἑκατέρωθεν λόγων. .. τὸ δὴ
τελευταῖον, συνέβησαν ἀλλήλοις πάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς, καὶ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ Πατρὶ
τὸν υἱὸν ἐψηφίσαντο" μόνοι δὲ, τὰ μὲν πρῶτα, δέκα καὶ ἑπτὰ λέγονται τὴν ᾿Αρείου
δόξαν ἐπαινέσαι" x. τ. A. ΒΌΖΟΜΕΝ. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 20. (al. 19.) init.
ed. ead, p. 38.
2 “Axpt τοσούτου ἅπαντα τῆς προσηκούσης τετύχηκεν ἐξετάσεως, ἄχρις οὗ ἡ τῷ
πάντων ἐφόρῳ Θεῷ ἀρέσκουσα γνώμη, πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἑνότητος συμφωνίαν εἰς φῶς
προήχθη" ὡς μηδὲν ἔτι πρὸς διχόνοιαν ἢ πίστεως ἀμφισβήτησιν ὑπολείπεσθαι.
Evses. Vit. Constant, lib. iii. c. 17. (al. 16.) Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree. ed. Reading,
tom, i. pp. 586, 7.
3 KEBLE’S Serm. pp. 129, 30.
30 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
any one who will take the trouble of referring to Sozomen’s ac-
count of this matter, will find that it is utterly irrelevant to the
point in hand. Sozomen tells us, that several philosophers were
present at the Council of Nice, for the sake of knowing what
was the Christian faith; and that upon one of them talking
boastingly and derisively on the subject, a simple and unlearned
confessor said, “In the name of Jesus Christ, hear me, O phi-
“ Josopher. There is one God, the maker of heaven and earth,
“ and all things visible and invisible, who made all things by
“ the power of the Word, and established them by the sacred
“ influence of the Holy Spirit. This Word, therefore, whom we
“ call the Son of God, pitying men for their errors and wretched
“ mode of living, vouchsafed to be born of a woman, and live
“ among men, and die for them, and he will come again to pro-
“ nounce sentence upon all for their deeds. That these things
“ are so, we believe, without curious investigation. Do not,
“ therefore, labour in vain, seeking for proofs of those things
“ which are understood by faith, and the manner in which these
“ things may or may not be done. But answer me, whether
* you believe ; to which the philosopher, struck with astonish-
“ ment, replies, I believe.”! Such is the anecdote from which
Mr. Keble’s inference is derived. The reader will at once per-
ceive, that there is not the slightest reference to Church-Tradition,
or even any form of Creed, but simply an enunciation of the
great pots of the Christian faith revealed in Scripture. Mr.
Keble must be hard pressed indeed for arguments when he
makes use of such as these. Had he been opposing the views
of those who think that the credibility of revealed truth is to be
judged by natural reason, then indeed this anecdote might have
had its weight in his favor; but how it can be quoted as tending
to establish the authority of Church-Tradition, I cannot under-
stand.
He then cites the reply of Acesius to Constantine ;—“ It is
“no new matter, Ὁ Emperor, which the Synod hath determined ;
“ for so, from of old, from the beginning, even from the times
of the Apostles, I have received the definition of the faith.”
* Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 18. (al. 17.) ed. Reading. pp. 36, 37.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 81
(p. 130.)1 But this is nothing to the purpose; for we do not
affirm, that the doctrine maintained at Nice was new to the
Church, but the contrary. The only point in question is, Upon
what foundation the doctrine was placed.
Then it is said, (p. 31,) Eustathius tells us, that the blasphemy
of Eusebius of Nieomedia “ caused, at first hearing, inconceivable
grief to the audience, on account of its great deviation.”* Well,
deviation from what? My reply would be, deviation from the
truth which they believed to be revealed in Scripture ; and which,
consequently, they had been in the habit of considering the
orthodox Christian faith.
The last argument is derived from the words with which
Eusebius of Czesarea prefaces the Creed which he proposed to
the Couneil, which were these,—‘‘ As we have received from
“ the bishops before us, in our first catechetical instruction, and
“ when we were baptized, as also we have learned out of the
“ divine Scriptures, and as we have both believed and taught
“....we offer unto you our faith ;”* from which Mr. Keble
would wish us to conclude, that Eusebius supported our op-
ponents’ view of the authority of Church-Tradition ; and this,
notwithstanding that in these very words Eusebius has himself
told us, that he learned these things out of the divine Scriptures.
Mr. Keble appears to have forgotten, that the question is,—not
whether a certain form of words, by which many of those who
1 Ὁ δὲ, οὐδὲν καινὸν, ἔφη, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ἣ σύνοδος ὥρισεν" οὕτω γὰρ ἄνωθεν καὶ
ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν χρόνων παρείληφα καὶ τὸν ὅρον τῆς πίστεως καὶ τὸν
χρόνον τῆς τοῦ Πάσχα ἑορτῆς. Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 10. (al. 7.) ed. Read.
p-38. See also Gras. Cyz. lib. ii. e. 80. ed. 1599. pp. 169, 70.
2 The words of Eustathius are these:—‘Os δὲ ἐζητεῖτο τῆς πίστεως ὃ τρόπος,
ἐναργὴς μὲν ἔλεγχος τὸ γράμμα τῆς Εὐσεβίου προὐβάλλετο βλασφημίας: ἐπὶ πάντων
δὲ ἀναγνωσθὲν, αὐτίκα συμφορὰν μὲν ἀστάθμητον τῆς ἐκτροπῆς ἕνεκα τοῖς αὐτηκόοις
προὐξένει. THEODOR. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. ο. 7. Op. ed. Schulz. tom. iii. p. 759. (ed.
Reading. lib. i. c. 8. p. 28.)
3 Καθὼς παρελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπων, ἐν TH πρώτῃ κατηχήσει,
καὶ ὅτε τὸ λουτρὸν ἐλαμβάνομεν, καθὼς καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν μεμαθήκομεν,
καὶ ὡς ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ ἐπιστεύομέν τε καὶ ἐδι-
δάσκομεν, οὕτω καὶ νῦν πιστεύοντες τὴν ἡμετέραν πίστιν προσαναφέρομεν. EUSEB.
Cs. Epist. ad Diceces. in THEop. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. ο. 11. 64. Schulz. pp. 776, 7.
(ed. Read. lib. i.c. 12. p. 38.) This letter of Eusebius is alsoto be found in
Soorat. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 8. ed. Read. p. 23. (al. lib. 1. ο. 56.) Gras. Cyzic,
Comment. Act. Cone. Nic. lib. ii. c. 35. ed. 1599. pp. 179 et seq. andin the Bene-
dictine edition of ATHANASIUS at the end of his Treatise De Decr. Syn. Nic.
VOL. (II. G
89 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
have gone before us have expressed their belief, may or may not
be used by us to express our belief, but—what are the grounds
of our belief ; and whether Scripture only is the foundation upon
which our belief (however expressed) rests; in other words,
whether we accept the Creed as the authoritative interpretation
of Scripture, derived from Church-Tradition, from which it
would not have been allowable for us to depart, whatever might
have been its testimony ; or, as, in our view, a faithful represen-
tation of the truth, as revealed in Scripture. And im these
words of Eusebius, as in most other similar references to the
Creed by the early Fathers, he may clearly see, that the /atter
was the view which they held of the matter.
Further ; as to the word “ consubstantial :” Mr. Keble tells
us, that “ the Fathers went to Church-Tradition for the critical
and decisive phrase ‘ of one substance with the Father, ”
(p. 188.) And he refers us, in a note, to Athanasius (De Deer.
Syn. Nic. § 25—27. i. 230), as his authority for the assertion.
But Athanasius, neither here nor anywhere else, says anything
like this. What he says, is this ;— They, therefore, who were
“ assembled at Nice, (Nicza,) holding this view, used also such
“ expressions [here is the reason given why they used the terms
“in question]. Moreover let us also proceed to show, that they
“ did not invent these terms for themselves, since this, also, is
“ nretended [by the Arians]; but used expressions which they
“ had received from former times, from those who went before
“ them ; so that not even THIS pretence may be left to them. Learn,
“ therefore, O ye Arians, enemies of Christ, that Theognostus,
“a man of repute, hesitated not to use the expression ‘ of the
“ substance.’ .... Dionysius, moreover, that was Bishop of Alex-
“ andria.... affirmed, that he confessed the Son to be ‘ consub-
“ stantial.” ”’! That is, some few of the Fathers, who lived
1 Of μὲν οὖν ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ συνελθόντες, ταύτην ἔχοντες Thy διάνοιαν, τοιαύτας
καὶ τὰς λέξεις ἔγραψαν. Ὅτι δὲ οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς πλάσαντες ἐπενόησαν ταύτας, ἐπείδὰν
καὶ τοῦτο προφασίζονται, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνωθεν παρὰ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν παραλαβόντες εἰρήκασι,
φέρε καὶ τοῦτο διελέγξωμεν, ἵνα μηδὲ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἣ πρόφασις περιλείπηται.
Μάθετε τοίνυν, ὦ Χριστομάχοι ᾿Αρειανοὶ, ὅτι Θεόγνωστος μὲν, ἀνὴρ λόγιος, οὐ παρη-
τήσατο τὸ ἐκ THs οὐσίας εἰπεῖν... .. Διονύσιος δὲ 6 γενομένος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς
᾿Αλεξανδρείας .... ὁμοούσιον αὐτὸν [1. 6. τὸν υἱὸν] ὁμολογεῖν διεβεβαιώσατο.
ATHANAS. De Decret. Nic. Synod. ὃ 25. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 290.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 83
before the Council of Nice, had used the phrase. But this is a
totally different thing from saying that the Fathers “went to
Church-Tradition for the phrase.”
And so, a little further on, he still more plainly shows, that
the Fathers at Nice selected the word consubstantial on the
ground—not of any Church-Tradition in its favor, but—of its
expressing their view of the sense of Scripture; and that his
reference to the use of the word by former Fathers, was merely
by way of a confirmation, as far as it went, of the correctness of
their view. “I have already related,” he says, “the reason and
“ [16 meaning which the Synod had in using the words ‘ of the
“ substance’ and ‘ consubstantial,’ agreeably to what is said of
“the Saviour out of the Scriptures ; and what Fathers before
“ them made use of the same expressions.”! Such, also, is the
account he gives of the matter, in his Letter to the African
bishops.—“ The bishops,” he says, “ did not invent these phrases
“‘ for themselves ; but had testimony from Fathers for them,
“when they wrote thus. For, antient bishops, nearly one
““ hundred and thirty years before, of great Rome, and of our
“* own city, blamed in their writings those who said that the Son
** was a created being, and not consubstantial with the Father.
* And of this, Eusebius, who was Bishop of Czsarea, was con-
** scious, who at first was disposed towards the Arian heresy.
““ But afterwards, having subscribed in the Nicene Synod itself,
“he wrote to his people, affirming, ‘We know, that certain
“ learned and illustrious bishops and writers of the antients used
“the word, consubstantial, in relation to the divinity of the
« Father and Son, ” ?
1 °Ey® μὲν yap τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν, καθ᾽ ἣν ἣ σύνοδος Td ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας
καὶ τὸ ὁμοούσιον συμφώνως τοῖς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν περὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος εἰρημένοις, καὶ
ὅσοι πρὸ αὐτῶν ἐξέθεντο πατέρες καὶ ἔγραψαν, διηγησάμην. ATHANAS. De Decret.
Syn. Nic. § 28. tom. i. p. 234. ©
2 Of δὲ ἐπίσκοποι, οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς εὑρόντες Tas λέξεις, GAA” ἐκ πατέρων ἔχοντες
τὴν μαρτυρίαν, οὕτως ἔγραψαν" ἐπίσκοποι γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι πρὸ ἐτῶν ἐγγύς που ἑκατὸν
τριάκοντα, τῆς μεγάλης Ῥώμης, καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας πόλεως, γράφοντες ἡτιάσαντο
τοὺς ποίημα λέγοντας τὸν υἱὸν καὶ μὴ ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐγίνωσκεν
Εὐσέβιος ὅ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Καισαρείας, πρότερον μὲν συντρέχων τῇ
᾿Αρειανῇ αἱρέσει" ὕστερον δὲ ὑπογράψας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδῳ, ἔγραψε τοῖς
ἰδίοις dic βεβαιούμενος, ὅτι καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν τινας λογίους καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκό-
πους καὶ συγγράφεας ἔγνωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὺς καὶ υἱοῦ θεότητος τῷ τοῦ ὅμοου-
σίου χρησαμένους ὀνόματι. ATHANAS. Ad Afros Episc. Ep. § 6. tom.i. P. 2.
p- 896.
G 2
84. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
All, then, that was contended for in behalf of the word on
this ground was, that some authors of good name had used it
before ; and this notice of its previous use, by some of the earlier
Fathers, was evidently merely intended by Athanasius to make
it a little more palatable to those whe objected to it, by showing
them that some, whose opinion they might esteem, had sane-
tioned the use of it. It is clear, however, that whatever might
be the claims of Church-Tradition, the use of a word by two or
three writers, spread over three centuries, could not give it a
right to participate in those claims. And certainly Augustine
knew nothing of this Tradition; for he tells us, in a passage
already quoted in a previous page,’ that the Nicene Fathers
“ made the word to meet the impiety of the Arian heretics ; ”
which, I admit, is a mistake in the other extreme; but which,
nevertheless, shows, that he did not believe it to be derived from
Church-Tradition.
Nay, more, it had not the sanction of Church-Tradition, for its
use had been directly opposed, and that by orthodox Fathers, as
Athanasius himself tells us. The Fathers assembled at a Synod
at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, in the latter part of the
third century,’ determined, as we are informed by Athanasius,”
and Basil,* and Hilary,® that “the Son is not consubstantial
with the Father ;” rejecting the word “ consubstantial,” as
Basil tells us, as not appropriate ; “ giving the idea of substance
“ and things derived from it; so that a divided substance would
* give the appellation of consubstantial to those things into
“ which it was divided.’® The word was rejected, where the
1 See above, vol. ii. p. 185.
2 The first Council at Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus, met about
the year 264, at which, according to Theodoret, (Her. Fab. lib. 2. § 8. Op. ed.
Schulz. tom. iv. p. 334.) the famous Gregory of Neocesarea, called Thaumaturgus,
presided, and Firmilian of Czesarea and other eminent bishops were present. It
is said, that they did not pass sentence against him in this Synod, on account of
his promising to give up his error; but that he did not do so, The second
Council held against him at Antioch, and in which he was formally condemned,
was held about the year 270. Which of these two Synods is referred to by the
writers quoted above, is somewhat doubtful.
5 See ArHanas. De Synod. Arimin. et Seleuc. habitis. ὃ 49 and 44. tom. i.
P. 2. p. 757.
4 Basiu. Cams. Ep. 52. Op. ed. Bened. tom. iii. p. 145.
5 Hirar. Prorav. De Synod. § 81. Op. ed. Bened. col. 1196.
δ Kal γὰρ τῷ ὄντι, of ἐπὶ Παύλῳ τῷ Σαμοσατεῖ συνελθόντες διέβαλον τὴν λέξιν
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 85
orthodox opinion was maintained; as was the case, as Atha-
nasius tells us, with some in his time; of whom, nevertheless,
he says, “ With respect to those who fully receive everything
“else of the things written at Nice, (Nicza,) but doubt only
* respecting the word ‘ consubstantial,’ it is not right to look
* upon them as enemies ; for we also do not contend with them
‘as against Arians, nor as persons fighting against the Fathers,
“ [that is, the Nicene bishops, according to the frequent use of
* the word by Athanasius,|] but reason with them as brethren
* with brethren, holding the same view with us, but differing
“ only about the word.”! And, a little further on, he allows,
“that “of the Fathers [1. e. the Fathers in general] some
“ spoke in favor of, and some against, the word ‘ consubstan-
“ tial.’”? The phrase “ consubstantial with the Father,” there-
fore, had not the sanction of Church- Tradition.
Consequently, when the bishops assembled at Nice used it,
the responsibility of so using it, rested upon them; and it was
evidently so used by them, because, in their judgment, it best
expressed the Scriptural doctrine. So, indeed, Athanasius him-
self tells us; for, having explained and defended the phrase
from Scripture, and supported it on the ground, that, though
not in Scripture, it expressed the sense we derive from Scripture
of the matter, he adds, (in the passage quoted above)—“ They,
* therefore, who were assembled at Nice, holding this view,
“ used, also, such expressions.” And then he proceeds to say,
that ‘‘ moreover” they did not invent the word, but made use
of one which had been used by some who went before them.
Mr. Keble’s argument, therefore, in favor of the authority
of Church-Tradition, because “the Fathers went to Church-
Tradition for the word consubstantial,” is altogether a mistake.
[i. 6. ὁμοούσιον) ὡς σὺκ εὔηχον.. Ἔφασαν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι, τὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου φωνὴν
παριστᾷν ἔννοιαν οὐσίας τε καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὥστε καταμερισθεῖσαν τὴν οὐσίαν
παρέχειν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῖς εἰς ἃ διηρέθη. Basin. Czs, Ep. 52,
(al. 800.) Op. ed. Bened. tom. iii. p. 145.
1 Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀποδεχομένους τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ γραφέντων, περὶ
δὲ μόνον τὸ ὁμοούσιον ἀμφιβάλλοντας, χρὴ μὴ ὡς πρὸς ἐχθροὺς διακεῖσθαι" καὶ
γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐχ ὡς πρὸς ᾿Αρειομανίτας, οὐδ᾽ ὡς μαχομένους πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας
ἐνιστάμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ds ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς διαλεγόμεθα, τὴν αὐτὴν μὲν ἡμῖν διά-
νοιαν ἔχοντας, περὶ δὲ τὸ ὄνομα μόνον διστάζοντας. ATHANAS. De Syn. Arim.
et Seleuc. hab. ὃ 41. tom. i. Pt. 2. p. 755.
2 Οὕτως εἰ καὶ τῶν πατέρων, οἱ μὲν οὕτως, οἱ δὲ οὕτως εἰρήκασι περὶ τοῦ ὁμοου-
σίου, μὴ φιλονείκωμεν ἡμεῖς, κι τι A. ATHANAS. ib. § 46, p. 761.
86 THE DOCTRINE‘ OF THE FATHERS
What is perhaps still more extraordinary in Mr. Keble’s
account of the acts of the Council, is, that he brings in the name
of Bishop Taylor as one who has, in his review of the proceedings
at Nice, sanctioned his statements. For, at the close of his
account, heading his page with the words, “ Proceedings at
“ Nicea, how related by Jackson, by Leslie, and by Bishop
Taylor,’ he gives the following passage from the bishop,—
«Bishop Taylor says, (x. 462.) ‘It is not certain that the
“ Nicene Fathers, at their meeting, recited any other Creed than
“the Apostolical,” assuming that they recited some Creed.”
(p. 139.) What support Mr. Keble’s views can receive from
this statement, I do not see; but the obvious intention is, to
lead the reader to suppose, that the bishop’s account of the
“ proceedings at Nicza,” is similar to that we are reviewing.
Now, in the very same work from which Mr. Keble has quoted
this passage, Bishop Taylor says,—‘‘ Whatever it was which
“ was there |i. 6. at Nice] determined, I am sure zt was not
“ determined by Tradition, but by Scripture.”’—“ When Constan-
“tine the emperor exhorted the Nicene Fathers to concord in
“ the question then to be disputed, they being divme matters,
*‘ he would they should be ended by the authority of the divine
“ Seriptures. ‘ For, saith he, the books of the Evangelists and
“ the Apostles, as also the oracles of the old prophets, do evi-
“ dently teach us, what we are to think of the Deity. There-
** fore all seditious contention being laid aside, let us determine
“the things brought into question by the testimonies of the
“ divinely-inspired Scriptures.’ And they did so. And by re-
“ lying on Scriptures only, we shall never be constrained to quit
“ these glorious portions of evangelical truth, the incarnation of
“ the Eternal Word, and the consubstantiality of the Father and
“ the Son.”—“ The Arians offered to be tried by Tradition....
“ St. Athanasius did sometimes pretend to it, though not always ;
*‘ and this shows, that there was no clear, indubitate, notorious,
“ universal tradition in the question ; and if there were not such
“an one, as good none at all; for it could not be such a founda-
“tion as was fit to build our faith upon, especially in such
“mysterious articles. But it is remarkable what Eusebius
“ (Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. ¢. 28) recites out of an old author, who
* wrote against the heresy of Artemon, which afterwards Samo-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 87
* satenus renewed, and Arius made public with some alteration.
<< «They all say,’ says he, ‘that our ancestors and the Apostles
“themselves not only received from our Lord those things
“ which they now affirm, but that they taught it to others; and
“ the preaching or tradition of it run on to the days of Pope
“« Victor, and was kept entire, but was depraved by Pope Zephy-
“yinus. And truly that which was said by them, might seem
“ to have in it much of probability, if the Divine Scriptures did
** not first of all contradict them; and that there were writings
“< of some brethren elder than the times of Victor.’ The brethren,
“‘ whose writings he names, are Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Cle-
“mens, Irenzeus, and the psalms and hymns of divers, made in
“honour of Christ. From all which it is evident, that the ques-
“ tions at Nice were not, and could net be determined by Tradition.
“2. That tradition might be, and was, pretended on both sides.
«3. That when it is pretended by the contradicting parties,
“‘ with some probability, it can effectually serve neither. 4. That
“ the tradition the Samosatenians and Arians boasted of, had in
“it much probability, when looked upon in its own series and
“* proper state. 5. That the divine Scriptures were at that time
“the best firmament of the Church, and defended her from
“that abuse which might have been imposed upon her, under
“ the title of Tradition,” &e.1
Such is the clear statement of Bishop Taylor, in opposition te
the account given us by Mr. Keble.
The quotation from Dr. Jackson is certainly more in his
favor. But, of course, no statements of modern writers can
have any authority in the matter, except so far as they are borne
out by the reports left us by the antients of the proceedings of
the Council.
The statement quoted from Leslie, referring, not to the
Council of Nice, but to the preceding provincial Synod at Alex-
andria against Arius, is so glaringly incorrect, that it is worth
no one’s picking up. “This,” says Leslie, “was the method
“ taken in the Council called at Alexandria against Arius ; it
* was asked by Alexander, the Archbishop, who presided, Quis
“ unguam talia audivit? Who ever heard of this doctrine be-
1 Br. Taytor’s Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 2. bk. 1. § 3. Works, vol. x.
pp. 428—230.
88 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ fore? And it being answered by all the bishops there assembled
“in the negative, it was concluded a novel doctrine, and contrary
“ to what had been universally received in the Christian Church.”
Let the reader only compare this statement with the extracts
given above from Alexander’s letter, from which it professes to
be taken, and he will then be able to judge, how far he can
trust to such loose references to antient writings, even when
made by men of the highest integrity. The whole statement
about the bishops answering in the negative, and its being
therefore concluded a novel doctrine, &c., is not only ἃ com-
plete fiction, but directly contrary to the representation actually
given in the letter of Alexander; to which we may add, that
Sozomen expressly tells us, that the matter was so hotly de-
bated in this Council, that its members could not agree among
themselves in the matter; but that Alexander at last decided
in favor of those who supported the view of the Son’s consub-
stantiality and co-eternity with the Father.
Mr. Keble concludes with three more references to Athana-
sius, and one to Epiphanius, upon which it is necessary to
offer a few remarks.
The first passage *® is adduced to prove “the instinctive and
“inevitable comparison which the new doctrines underwent
“with those before received,” and (as I suppose Mr. Keble
would have us conclude) the consequent rejection of the new.
But the passage is merely an appeal to the reader, whether he
had not always understood the word Son, learned in his first
catechism, as implying identity of substance with the Father,
and consequently whether he had not been surprised at the doc-
trine of Arius, as something different from what he had been
always taught ; an appeal which the strongest opponents of Mr.
1 Kpiths καθίσας [i. 6. ᾿Αλέξανδρος) σὺν τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ κλήρου, εἰς ἅμιλλαν
ἀμφοτέρους ἤγαγεν" ὡς δὲ συμβαίνειν φιλεῖ περὶ τὰς ἔριδας τῶν λόγων, ἑκάτερος
ἐπειρᾶτο νικᾷν. Συνίσταται δὲ “Apes μὲν τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰρημένοις" οἱ δὲ, ὡς
ὁμοούσιος καὶ συναΐδιος ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τῷ Πατρί. ΣΣυνεδρίου δὲ πάλιν γενομένου,
τοσαύτας διαλέξεις ἀνακινήσαντες, οὐ συνέβησαν ἀλλήλοις. ᾿Αμφηρίστου δὲ τῆς
Cnthoews ἔτι δοκούσης εἶναι, πέπονθέ τι καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος τὰ πρῶτα, πῆ μὲν τούτους,
πῆ δὲ ἐκείνους ἐπαινῶν" τελευτῶν δὲ, τοῖς ὁμοούσιον καὶ συναΐδιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν
ἀποφαινομένοις ἔθετο, καὶ τὸν ἴΑρειον ὁμοίως φρονεῖν ἐκέλευσε, τῶν ἐναντίων λόγων
ἀφέμενον. SozoMEN. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 15. (al. 14.) Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree.
ed. Reading. tom. ii. pp. 31, 32.
? ATHANAS. Orat. 2a, contra Arian. § 34. tom. {. p. 502. See Keble’s Serm.
pp. 139, 140.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 89
Keble’s views would not hesitate to make in a similar case, and
which, therefore, we may pass over without further remark.
“Secondly,” adds Mr. Keble, “ he [i. e. Athanasius] presents
“«‘ the Creed to the Emperor Jovian, not merely as the judgment
“ of the present Church on the meaning of the Scriptures, but
“rather as her testimony to the fact that ‘this faith had all
“ along been known to all in the Church, being learned and
“ yead out of the divine Scriptures. For, in this, the saints
“ being perfected, endured martyrdom.’”! Now, in the origi-
nal, there is not one word to authorize the observation with
which this citation is introduced, as to the presentation of the
Creed to the Emperor Jovian, as the Church’s testimony to the
fact, &c.; nor anything corresponding to the apparent quota-
tion, that “ this faith had all along been known to all in the
Church.” The passage, with the preceding context, is this.
“ Your piety, therefore, being desirous of learning from us the
“ faith of the Catholic Church, having given thanks for this to
“ the Lord, we have thought good above all things to bring to
“the remembrance of your piety the Creed confessed by the
« Fathers at Nice (Niczea). For, some having rejected this, have
‘* in various ways plotted against us, because we do not assent to
“ the Arian heresy, and have become the causes of heresy and
“ schisms im the Catholic Church. For, the true and pious
* faith in the Lord hath stood forth evident to all, being known
*< and read out of the divine Scriptures. For, in this, the saints
‘« being perfected, endured martyrdom,” &c.? Now this pas-
sage, so far from being favorable to Mr. Keble’s view, is
directly opposed to it; for it expressly tells us, that the true
faith is evident to all, as being known and read out of the divine
Scriptures.
1 KEBLE’s Serm. p: 140,
2 Θελησάσης τοίνυν τῆς σῆς εὐσεβείας μαθεῖν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὴν τῆς καθολικῆς
Ἐκκλησίας πίστιν, εὐχαριστήσαντες ἐπὶ τούτοις τῷ Κυρίῳ, ἐβουλευσάμεθα μᾶλλον
πάντων τὴν παρὰ τῶν Πατέρων ἐν Νικαίᾳ ὁμολογηθεῖσαν πίστιν ὑπομνῆσαι τὴν
σὴν εὐσέβειαν: ταύτην γὰρ ἀθετήσαντές τινες, ἡμῖν μὲν ποικίλως ἐπεβούλευσαν;
ὅτι μὴ ἐπειθόμεθα τῇ ᾿Αρειανῇ αἱρέσει" αἴτιοι δὲ γεγόνασιν αἱρέσεως καὶ σχισμάτων
τῇ καθολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθὴς καὶ εὐσεβὴς εἰς τὸν Κύριον πίστις φανερὰ
πᾶσι καθέστηκεν, ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν γινωσκομένη τε καὶ ἄναγινωσκομένη" ἐν
ταὐτῃ γὰρ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι τελειωθέντες ἐμαρτύρησαν, κ. τ. A. ATHANAS. Epist.
ad Jovian. § 1. tom. 1. P. 2. p. 780. The Benedictine translation of the latter
part is,—nemini tamen obscura esse potest vera et pia in Dominum fides, ut quar
ex divinis Scripturis haberi et internosci queat,
90 THE DOCTRINE OF THE .FATHERS
The next quotation stands thus ;—“ The Fathers inserted the
* clause of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father, and ana-
“ thematized those who affirmed a diversity of substance, not in
* terms which they had framed for themselves, but which they too
“ had learned from the Fathers before them .... which being so,
“ the Creed of Niczea is sufficient, agreeing as it does also with
“the antient bishops.” “ This,” adds Mr. Keble, “ shows in
“ what light the framers of the Creed wished it to be viewed.”
Now the real passage, as it stands in Athanasius, is, in more
than one point, very different, and runs thus ;—“ The Fathers,
“ having taken this view of the matter, wrote that the Son was
* consubstantial with the Father, and anathematized those
“ who say, that the Son is of a different substance ; not having
* invented phrases for themselves, but having themselves learnt
“ them from the Fathers before them, as we have said. These
* things, therefore, being thus demonstrated, their Synod at Arimi-
“ num is superfluous ; and the other Synod concerning the faith
“ named by them, is superfluous; for that at Nice (Nicaea) is
* sufficient, being also in agreement with the antient bishops, in
* which also their Fathers subscribed.”?! Now, here, all is con-
sistent with the accounts we have already quoted from Athana-
sius. The Fathers, taking that view of the matter, which
Athanasius had been just before describig,—that is, as to
the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the subject,—wrote, on
that authority, that the Son was consubstantial with the
Father; and in so domg, did not use an expression which
was entirely new ; for some of the earlier Fathers had used it,
which, of course, as far as it went, was an argument in its favor.
And these matters having been in the Nicene Council fully in-
vestigated, and demonstrated to be as the Nicene Creed repre-
sented them to be, it was unnecessary that any other Council
should be called upon the same matter; the decision of the
Council of Nice having also the argument in its favor, as it
appeared to him, that it was in unison with that of many antient
1 Οὕτω νοήσαντες οἱ Πατέρες ἔγραψαν ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ
ἀνεθεμάτισαν τοὺς λέγοντας, ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τὸν υἱόν" οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς
πλασάμενοι λέξεις, GAAG καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀπὸ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν πατέρων μαθόντες, καθάπερ
Ud \ “ , > “A ς ᾽ ί Υ
εἴπομεν. Τούτων δὲ οὕτω δεικνυμένων, περιττὴ αὐτῶν ἣ ᾿Αρίμηνος, περιττὴ καὶ
ε > > ~ > 4 ΄ , > “ A c > ,
ἡ ἄλλη παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ὀνομαζομένη περὶ πίστεως σύνοδος" ἀρκεῖ γὰρ H ἐν Νικαίᾳ, σύμ-
φωνος οὖσα καὶ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐπισκόποις, ἐν ἥ καὶ οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν ὑπέγραψαν.
Araanas. Epist a1 Afros Episc. § 9. tom. i. P. 2. p. 898,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 91
bishops. The reader will observe, not only the different turn
given to the sentence by the words omitted by Mr. Keble at
the beginning of it, but more especially that the stringent
words, “ which being so, the Creed of Nicea is sufficient,’ are
a complete (no doubt unintentional) misrepresentation of the
passage.
To these three passages of Athanasius, quoted by Mr. Keble,
I would add for Ais consideration the two following. In his
Letter concerning the decrees of the Nicene Council, Athanasius,
after discussing the points controverted at Nice, adds these
words,— And of these things we are certified, not from any
external source, but from the Scriptures.”! Moreover, how un-
willingly even a word was used, not found expressly in the Serip-
tures, we may judge from the following passage in the same
Letter. ‘“ But, perhaps, being reproved for the word uncreated,
“ they will themselves, in their impiety, say, It behoves us, also,
* with respect to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to speak
« from the Scriptures those things which are written respecting him,
“ and not to introduce phrases not to be found in the Scriptures.
“ I? DOES, INDEED, BEHOVE US 80 TO DO, | SHOULD MYSELF ALSO
“ say, for the representations of the truth derwed from the Scriptures
“ are much more exact, than those derived from any other source ;
* but the perverseness, and artful and versatile impiety of the
“ς Kusebians, compelled the bishops, as I before said, to set forth
* words more plainly subversive of their impiety; and those
“ words which were written by the Council have been proved to
* have a right sense.”” From which we may see, that the use
of the words by preceding bishops, formed no sufficient autho-
rity, in the estimation of Athanasius, for their being considered
1 Kal τούτων οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἡμεῖς, GAN ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ἔχομεν τὴν πίστιν.
ΑΤΗΑΝΑΒ. De Decret. Nic. Syn. § 17. tom. i. p. 222.
2°AAN ἴσως καὶ διὰ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἀγένητον ἐλεγχθέντες, πονηροὶ τὸν τρόπον
ὄντες, ἐθελήσουσι καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγειν" ἔδει καὶ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα λέγεσθαι, καὶ μὴ ἀγρά-
φους ἐπεισάγεσθαι λέξεις. Ναὶ ἔδει, φαίην ἂν καὶ ἔγωγε" ἀκριβέστερα γὰρ ἐκ τῶν
γραφῶν μᾶλλον ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρων ἐστὶ τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας γνωρίσματα: ἀλλ᾽ 7 κακοήθεια
καὶ μετὰ πανουργίας παλίμβολοϑ ἀσέβεια τῶν περὶ Εὐσέβιον ἠνάγκασε, καθὰ
προεῖπον, τοὺς ἐπισκόπους λευκότερον ἐκθέσθαι τὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῶν ἀνατρέποντα
ῥήματα: καὶ τὰ μὲν παρὰ τῆς συνόδου γραφέντα διάνοιαν ὀρθὴν ἔχοντα δέδεικται.
AtHanas. De Decret. Nic. Syn. § 32. tom. i. p, 237.
92 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
orthodox ; and that Scripture was so completely the sole autho-
rity followed, that even words not found therein, though appear-
ing to express a Scriptural sense, were very reluctantly used.
I might add many similar passages, as where he says, that the
bishops “collecting from the Scriptures their meaning, expressed
the matter more clearly, and used the term ‘ consubstantial.’”’+
But more can hardly be desired.
There remains one more of Mr. Keble’s citations, to be
noticed, viz., that from Epiphanius,—which, according to
Mr. Keble, runs thus;— “They professed the faith of the
* Fathers, orthodox and unswerving; and delivered down
“to us from the Apostles and Prophets,” (p. 141); the real
passage being this; ‘They profess the orthodox faith of
*‘ the Fathers, which is also immutable, and was delivered by
“ the Apostles and Prophets.”* The notion of successional de-
livery, implied in the terms “ down to us,” has no place in the
original, and if it had, the passage would only state a matter of
fact which we do not call in question.
Wearisome as the examination of these passages may have
been, the result will, 1 think, have proved the necessity of it,
and produce at least one good effect, namely, that the reader
will be set on his guard in this matter, and prevented from
hastily putting credence in such representations, without com-
paring them with the originals ; as it is evident, from the speci-
mens given above, how completely he may be misled, even
where, as in the case before us, he may have every motive for
confidence which character can give.
I have now gone through the whole of Mr. Keble’s arguments
and authorities, by which he has attempted to support his view
of the mode of proceeding adopted at Nice, and shall leave the
reader to judge how far his conclusion holds good, that the
Nicene Fathers were “ earnest and constant in resorting to Tra-
“dition, in order to decide among conflicting interpretations
“ of Scripture, and settle the fundamentals of our most holy
1 Suvayaydyres ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν Thy διάνοιαν, λευκότερον γράφοντες εἰρήκασι Td
ὁμοούσιον. ΤΡ. De Synod. i. P. 2. p. 760.
2 Ὁμολογοῦσι tiv τῶν Πατέρων ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν καὶ akAwh, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν
᾿Αποστόλων καὶ Προφητῶν παραδοθεῖσαν. ἘΡΙΡΗ. Adv. her. ; in heer. Arian. 8.11.
Op. ed. Petay. tom. i. p. 735.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 93
* faith.” (p. 141.) One thing only I would add, and that is,
that when he speaks as if those who opposed his views discarded
the testimony of the Primitive Church to the faith as useless,
and no help to the understanding of Scripture, or argument in
favor of that interpretation which it supports, he very sadly
misrepresents their sentiments. The question, the sole question
is, whether we have an infallible Church-Tradition, binding the
conscience to receive what it delivers as the meaning of Scripture,
or whether our faith ought to rest on Scripture only. We affirm
the latter, and also thatsuch was the mind ofthe Nicene and earlier
Fathers, who appealed to the testimony of Fathers who went
before them, not as a testimony binding upon the conscience,
(and thus practically superseding Scripture,) but as one which
might reasonably be an additional moral inducement to lead men |
to believe, that the doctrine they supported was the doctrine of
Scripture ; and in the consciousness that it was but reasonable,
that such testimony in favor of their views should be required
of them, to show that they were not novelists. Church-Tradition,
in that sense in which alone it could be considered “ practically
infallible,” as Mr. Keble calls it, namely, as implying a strictly
universal consent, never could and never can be had, even for
any one moment, during the whole period of the Church’s
existence. That such was the mind of the Nicene Fathers, is
evident from the course of their deliberations, as described by
Athanasius. Had they held the notions of our opponents on
the subject, there would have been some reference made by them
to Ecclesiastical Tradition as the authoritative interpreter of
Scripture, and consequently their authority for the interpretation
they gave to Scripture in their decision. But, on the contrary,
we find from the various passages given above from Athanasius,
that their judgment was given directly from Scripture, without
any such reference. Nay, they had evidently no idea of being
in possession of any such authoritative interpretation, for it
appears that their intention and great desire was to use nothing
but phrases occurring in Scripture, and that they very reluctantly
adopted a word not found in Scripture, and then only on the
consideration that that word seemed compendiously to express
the meaning of a number of Scriptural phrases they had collected
94 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
together for the purpose of obtaining the sense of Scripture on
the subject.
Let our opponents hear one of their own chosen witnesses,
Bishop Patrick,— This tradition [i. 6. the Nicene Creed] sup-
“‘ poses the Scripture for its ground; and delivers nothing but
“‘ what the Fathers assembled at Nice believed to be contained
“ there, and was first fetched from thence.” +
Nay, even a Romanist may be found giving the same account
of the matter. “The Council,” says Tillemont, “ perceiving
* their hypocrisy, collected together all the Scripture expressions
“ which related to the Son, and comprehended them all under
“ the word consubstantial, which is to say, of the same substance ;
“and all the bishops, after long considering it, agreed to that
“term. It was thus that, after having thoroughly examined
* all the doctrine of the Evangelists and Apostles, the Prelates,
“ grounding their determination upon the Holy Scriptures, settled
“ with great caution the perfect rule of the catholic faith. They
“ had hkewise a more particular reason for using that term.
“For, the Council having seen, by the Letter of Eusebius of
“ Nicomedia, which we spoke of before, that the Arians looked
“upon the consubstantiality as diametrically opposite to their
£ heresy, they were willing to make use of that sword against
“ them which they had drawn out of the scabbard themselves.” *
The same reference to Scripture as the sole authority upon
which our faith is to rest in this matter, is observable in the
passage of Dionysius Romanus, given to us by Athanasius on
this subject, from a work of his against the Sabellians. “ Not
“ less also,” he says, ‘‘ must one blame those who think that the
“ Son is a creature, and suppose that the Lord was made like
* any one of things truly made, since the divine oracles bear wit-
“ ness, that his generation was such as was meet and fitting for
* him, and that he is not a creature formed and made. It is no
“shght, but rather the greatest blasphemy, therefore, to say,
“that the Lord was in any way made by hands. For if the
“ Son was made, there was a time when he was not ; but he was
1 Bishop Parricx’s Discourse about Tradition. Lond. 1683. p. 18.
* Ti1LEMoNt’s History of the Arians, translated by Deacon, vol. ii. p. 623,
The last statement in the above passage is derived from AmBnros. De fide,
lib, iii. c. 7,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK, 95
“in existence always, if he is in the Father, [Jo. xiv. 11.] ashe
“himself says; and if Christ is the Word, and Wisdom, and
“ Power ; for the divine Scriptures say, that Christ is these, as ye
“know .... To the absurdities that follow from saying that the
“ Son is a creature, the leaders of this opinion do not appear to
“ me to have attended, and consequently to have erred altogether
“ from the truth, having understood the passage, ‘The Lord
created me in the beginning of his ways,’ [Prov. vi. 22.] con-
“ trary to the meaning of the divine and prophetic Scripture in this
“respect. For, the word ‘created,’ as ye know, has more than
“ one signification .... And any one may see, that the Son is
often said by the divine oracles to have been begotten, but not,
“ to have been made ; by which they who embrace false notions
* respecting the generation of the Lord, are evidently condemned,
“who dare to say that his divine and unutterable generation
“ was acreation. Therefore, we must not divide the wonderful
“and divine unity into three divinities, nor diminish by
“ the notion of creation the dignity and excellent greatness
“ of the Lord, but believe in God the Father Almighty, and in
“ Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and that the
“ Word is united to the God of the Universe ; for he says, “1
“and my Father are one ;’ [Jo. x. 30.] and, ‘I am in the
« Father and the Father in me.’ [Jo. xiv. 10.1᾽}
There is not in the whole passage the slightest allusion to
anything but Scripture ; not one word to lead us to suppose, that
he knew anything of Ecclesiastical Tradition as the authoritative
interpreter of Scripture.
In conclusion, 1 will add a few words on an argument which,
as it has been used by the Romanists, may possibly be resorted
to by the Tractators. They will perhaps be disposed to reply,—
True, these Fathers did go to Scripture only for their proof, and
appeared to draw their conclusions directly from Scripture, but
this was only because their adversaries refused and rejected Eccle-
siastical Tradition ; but the authority upon which they rested in
their own minds for their interpretation of Scripture, and which
they felt themselves bound in conscience to obey, was Ecclesias-
1 Dionys. Rom. Ady. Sabell. cit. in ATHanas. De Decret. Nic. Synod. § 26.
tom. i. p. 291,
96 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
tical Tradition. This is in fact their last hold; and, like the Ro-
manists, they studiously endeavour to make us suppose, that the
heretics rejected Ecclesiastical Tradition ;} but it is a refuge
wholly untenable. For, the supposed fact upon which the argu-
ment is founded, is anything but a fact. The heretics were re-
markable for appealing to Tradition. In the case of Arius, now
before us, we find him making a direct appeal to the testimony
of Antiquity as in his favor, and in a Letter of his to Pope
Alexander, preserved by Epiphanius, he introduces his Creed as
the Creed which he had learnt from his ancestors.’ This is a point,
however, to which we have already directed the reader’s atten-
tion,? and therefore I would only observe here, that it is a complete
reply to any such objection as we have supposed against our
availing ourselves of the full value of the testimony which the
conduct of the Nicene Council bears to the correctness of the
views we are advocating. And hence we may estimate the ac-
curacy of Mr. Newman’s statement, that “when the history of
* Arianism is examined, this peculiarity will be found respecting
it, that it appealed only to Scripture, not to Catholic Tradi-
* tion ;”* which, from one who professes to have examined its
history, and has published a book on the subject, is somewhat
extraordinary.
The Tractators must pardon me for saying, that their state-
ments, when taken as a whole, incontestably prove, that they
have taken up their views not from a careful and impartial pe-
rusal of the Fathers themselves, but from the works of Romish
and semi-Romish writers ; for they are involved in almost all
their misrepresentations and mistakes.
In the preceding observations I have abstained from noticing
the statements of Gelasius of Cyzicus respecting the proceedings of
the Council, because their authority has been questioned by some ;
but I may here add some passages from that author, showing
1 See Newman’s Lect. on Rom. &e. Lect. 7; &e.
2. Ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν ἣ ἐκ προγόνων, hy καὶ ἀπὸ cod μεμαθήκαμεν, μακάριε Πάπα,
ἔστιν αὕτη. EpipHaN. Ady. her.; in her. Arian. § 7. Op. ed. Petav. tom. i.
p. 732.
3 See vol. i. pp. 374—378. See, also, besides the passages there mentioned,
Soorat. Hist. Eccl. i. 26.
* Newman’s Lect. on Rom. &e. p. 205.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 97
that his account agrees with the view we have taken above, or
rather, I should say, with the account we have quoted from
Athanasius, of those proceedings; and certainly they afford a
probable testimony of at least the principles by which the
Council was governed ; for, even supposing that we are indebted
to the inventive powers of Gelasius, or the more antient author
from whom he professes to quote, for much of the matter con-
tained in his details, yet the great principles by which the
Council was governed, are surely not likely to have been mis-
represented so soon after it was held.
Thus, then, speaks Gelasius ;—“ That divine assembly of or-
“ thodox priests of God that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, in.
“ vestigated and set forth, by means of the Prophetical and Evan-
“¢ gelical and Apostolical Scriptures, concerning the Word of Life,
* that is, the Son of God, that he is truly uncreated in his Divine
* nature, and not a creature, as that most impious enemy of
* God, Arius, blasphemously said against him, is truly Sion,
* and Jerusalem, and the high mountain of the Lord, and the
*“ house of the God of Jacob...... And this venerable and
“ holy rule of the spotless faith hath been to us im very deed a
“high mountain of God from aboye, according as the word
“ spoken by the Lord himself first manifested, and which was
* delivered by the Apostles, and has now been declared by his
* priests assembled at Nice by Scriptural testimonies.” “ And
“ they [the Fathers at Nice] proclaimed him to be the Maker
« and Former of the things visible and invisible, according to
“ the Apostolical faith delivered to his Church from the begin-
“ning, having set forth the proofs by Scriptural testimonies.”?
1 ᾿Αληθῶς γὰρ Σιὼν καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ὄρος Κυρίου ὑψηλότατον καὶ οἶκος τοῦ
Θεοῦ Ἰακὼβ, ὁ θεῖος ἐκεῖνος τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὀρθοδόξων ἱερέων ὅμιλος" πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
διασκεψαμένων καὶ παραστησάντων διά τε γραφῶν Προφητικῶν καὶ Εὐαγγελικῶν
καὶ ᾿Αποστολικῶν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ds ἀληθῶς
ἄκτιστος τῇ τῆς θεότητος φύσει, καὶ οὐ κτίσμα" καθὼς ὃ θεομάχος καὶ ἀσεβέστατος
κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλασφήμησεν Αρειος. .... .- Καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑψηλὺν ὄρος Θεοῦ ἄνωθεν
ἡμῖν, (καθὰ προεδήλωσεν ὃ λόγος παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου, διὰ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων δοθεὶς,
καὶ νῦν διὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ ἱερέων κατὰ τὴν Νικαέων γραφικαῖς μαρτυρίαις τρανωθείς,) ὅ
προσκυνητὸς οὗτος καὶ ἅγιος τῆς ἀμωμήτου πίστεως ὅρος. GELAS. Cyzic. Com-
ment. Act. Cone. Nic. ed. Balf. 1599. lib. i. c. 9. pp. 28, 9.
2 Krlorhy τε αὐτὸν καὶ δημιουργὸν ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἐκήρυξαν, κατὰ τὴν
ἀνέκαθεν παραδοθεῖσαν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀποστολικὴν πίστιν, γραφικαῖς μαρτυ-
plas τὰς ἀποδείξεις ἐκδώσαντες. Ib. lib. ii. ο. 11. p. 94.
-VOL, III. H
98 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Further on, having spoken of the disputation between the
bishops and a philosopher who was advocating the cause of
Arius, he says, “ By the divine word, as with fire, they con-
sumed all the subtle pretences of the philosopher like tow.”+*
And so in a response made to the philosopher by Macarius,
bishop of Jerusalem, in the name of the Council, we find the
bishop speaking thus,—‘“‘ We have already admonished you,
“ that we must not by any means use the word, ‘ how,’ with
“respect to the divine mysteries. For they are unutterable
“and incomprehensible. But, according as we have been taught
* out of the sacred oracles, we will speak, so far as words will
“enable us to set them forth.’’®
The weight necessarily attaching to the proceedings of such
a Council will, I am.convinced, render any apology needless for
the space here given to it; and I trust that the testimonies
adduced above can leave no doubt on the mind of the impartial
reader what was the authority, the sole authority recognised by
the bishops there assembled, in their deliberations respecting
the faith.
How little the notions of Dr. Pusey and his party respecting
this Council, either as to the nature of its proceedings, or its
authority, agree with those of the Fathers, may be judged from
the following passage of the excellent Hilary of Poictiers. “ As.
“in winter, in a stormy sea, it is the safest course to be ob-
‘served by mariners, that when a storm rages, they should
*‘ return to the port whence they set out; or, as it befits care-
“less youths, that when, in maintaining their own family,
“ having exceeded the mode of living adopted by their parents,
“they have made an undue use of their liberty, there should
“ be a return, as the only safe and necessary course, under fear
“ of losing their patrimony, to parental habits ; so amidst these
“ shipwrecks of the faith, the heirship of the heavenly patri-
“mony being almost lost, ἐξ is safest for us to retain the first
1 Πάσας yap τὰς τοῦ φιλοσόφου πολυπλόκους προτάσεις, ὡς πυρὶ, τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ,
στυππίου δίκην, κατανήλισκον. Ib. lib. ii. c. 13. p. 99 (misprinted 89.)
2 Ἤδη εἰρήκαμέν σοι, ὦ βέλτιστε, μηδαμῶς ἐπὶ τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ μυστηρίων λέγειν
τὸ ὅπως. ᾿Απόῤῥητα γὰρ εἰσὶ καὶ ἀνεπιλόγιστα. ‘Os δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων ἐδι-
δάχθημεν, ἐροῦμεν ὅσον 5 λόγος παραστῆσαι δυνήσεται. Ib, lib, ii. ο. 24,
p. 154.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 99
** and sole evangelical faith confessed and understood at baptism,
““ [which he tells us elsewhere was not the Nicene Creed, which
“he did not hear of till long after,}! and not to change that
“which alone, as received and heard, I am disposed to accept as
“ my Creed; not indeed that those things which are contained
“in the Creed agreed to at the synod of our Fathers are to be
“ condemned as irreligiously and wickedly written, but because
* through the boldness of men they are used as a handle for
“objections . . . [and having added an intimation that one
** emendation leads to another, he proceeds thus:] How much
“ do I now admire thee, Lord Constantius our Emperor, for your
“ blessed and religious resolve, who dost wish to know the faith
“ONLY ACCORDING TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN ;
“and deservedly address yourself to those very declarations them-
“ selves of the only-begotten of God, that your heart, charged with
“ the cares of empire, may also be filled with the knowledge of the
“ divine words. He who repudiates this is antichrist, and he who
« feigns it is anathema.”*
A passage more eompletely condemnatory of the views of
Dr. Pusey and his party could hardly be penned. So far from
telling us, that the additions made to the Creed at Nice were
1 « Regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens, fidem Ni-
eznam nunquam nisi exsulaturus audivi.” Hiiar. Pict. De Synod. ὃ 91. Op.ed.
Bened. col. 1205.
2 « Quod hieme undoso mari observari a navigantibus maxime tutum est, ut,
naufragio deszviente, in portum ex quo solverant revertantur; vel incautis
adolescentibus convenit, ut cum in tuenda domo sua, mores paternez obser-
vantie transgressi, profusa libertate sua usi sunt, jam sub ipso amittendi pa-
trimonii metu solus illis ad paternam consuetudinem necessarius et tutus
recursus sit; ita inter hee fidei naufragia, ccelestis patrimonii jam pene pro-
fligata hereditate, tutissimum nobis est, primam et solam evangelicam
fidem confessam in baptismo intellectamque retinere, nec demutare quod
solum acceptum atque auditum habeo bene credere: non ut ea, que synodo
patrum nostrorum continentur, tamquam irreligiose et impie scripta damnanda
sint, sed quia per temeritatem humanam usurpantur ad contradictionem....
In quantum ego nunc beate religioseque voluntatis vere te, Domine Con-
stanti Imperator, admiror, fidem tantum secundum ea que scripta sunt desi-
derantem; et merito plane ad illa ipsa Unigeniti Dei eloquia festinans, ut
imperatorie sollicitudinis capax pectus etiam divinorum dictorum conscientia
plenum sit. Hoe qui repudiat, antichristus est; et qui simulat, anathema
est.” Hinar. Prorav. Ad Constant. Aug. lib. ii. §§ 7, 8. Op. ed. Bened. col,
1229, 30.
H 2
100 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
derived through Tradition from the oral teaching of the Apostles, :
he very pointedly intimates, that it would have been better to
have made no change at all in the Creed commonly received, and
the praises the Emperor for looking tu Scripture alone for the faith.
Aruanastius, (fl. a. 326.)
From the Council of Nice we proceed to the writings of Atha-
nasius, who is so confidently claimed by the Tractators as main-
taining their views, that an appeal by one of their opponents to
some passages in his writings, as testifying against them, was
thought worth only a contemptuous sneer.1 Whether it was
wise, or becoming, or suitable to their own proficiency in Patris-
tical learning to assume such a tone, I leave the reader to judge.
Certainly it would be most easy to retort, especially upon one
who has so blundered in the signification of a phrase of common
occurrence, as to have quoted a passage of Athanasius in a sense
directly opposed to its obvious meaning ;* but I shall do no
more than bespeak from the reader an impartial consideration
of the passages I am about to quote.
After explaining the doctrine relative to the Second Person
in the sacred Trinity, Athanasius remarks,—“ But these things,
“ the whole inspired Scripture teaches more clearly and fully ;
“in reliance upon whose testimony, indeed, we also write these
“ things to you; and you, if you read those i ie may be
* certified of the truth of what I have said.’’®
Words more clearly overthrowing the whole system of our
opponents, could hardly be found.
Again, he says of the Arians, “If, therefore, they deny that
“ which isin Scripture, they immediately deprive themselves of
“ any right to the name of Christians, and may properly be
“ called by all Atheists, and enemies of Christ ; for this name
1 See Review of Dr. Shuttleworth on Tradition, in the British Critic for
April, 1839.
2 See vol. i. pp. 72—74.
3 Ταῦτα δὲ Kal πᾶσα θεόπνευστος γραφὴ φανερώτερον καὶ κατὰ μεῖζον κηρύττει,
ἀφ᾽ ὧν δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθαῤῥηκότες ταῦτά σοι γράφομεν, καὶ σὺ ταύταις ἐντυγχάνων,
δυνήσῃ τῶν λεγομένων ἔχειν τὴν πίστιν. ATHANASII Orat. contr. Gent. ὃ 4,
Op. ed. Ben. tom, i. p. 43.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 101
* they have thus given to themselves. But, ifthey confess with
“us that the words of Scripture are inspired, let them dare
*‘ openly to say what they secretly think, that God was once
* without reason and without wisdom.” +
Is not Scripture plainly referred to here, as the Rule of faith
and Judge of controversies in the matter in question ?
And so, a little further on, (as, indeed, continually through-
out his writings,) the Arians are blamed for “ not attending to
the Scriptures.” * And, of his own doctrine, he continually tells
us, that he learned it from the Scriptures.’
Nay, in the same treatise, he says (as already quoted), “ Of
“ these things we are certified, not from any external source, but
«¢ from the Scriptures.””*
And so completely was Scripture his sole Rule of faith, that
even the use of a word not in Scripture, to define the faith, was
thought by him, under ordinary circumstances, objectionable.
“ Perhaps,” says Athanasius in a passage already quoted with
reference to the Council of Nice, but which we must repeat here
as showing his own views, “ they will say, It behoves us also,
“ with respect to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to speak
“ from the Scriptures those things which are written respecting
“him, and not to introduce phrases not to be found in the Scrip-
“ tures. It DOES, INDEED, BEHOVE US so To ΡΟ, I sHOULD
“ MYSELF ALSO say; for the representations of the truth derived
« from the Scriptures, are much more exact than those derwed from
“ any other source ; but the perverseness, and artful, and versatile
“impiety of the Eusebians, compelled the bishops, as I before
“said, to set forth words more plainly subversive of their im-
“ piety; and those words which were written by the Council,
“ have been proved to have a right sense.” ὃ Hence, in another
1 Ei μὲν οὖν ἀρνοῦνται τὰ γεγραμμένα, αὐτόθεν ἀλλότριοι Kal τοῦ ὀνόματος
ὄντες, οἰκείως ἂν καλοῖντο καὶ παρὰ πάντων ἄθεοι καὶ χριστομάχοι: οὕτω γὰρ
ἑαυτοὺς ἐπωνόμασαν καὶ αὐτοί. Ei δὲ συνομολογοῦσιν ἡμῖν εἶναι θεόπνευστα τὰ
τῆς γραφῆς ῥήματα, τολμησάτωσαν φανερῶς εἰπεῖν & κεκρυμμένως φρονοῦσιν" ὅτι.
ἄλογος καὶ ἄσοφος ἦν ὅ θεός ποτε. κ- τ. A. Inv. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 15. i. 221.
2 τῶν γραφῶν ἄνήκοοι. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 29. i. 235.
3 Μεμαθήκαμεν ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. ὃ 15. i. 220.
See also ὃ 21. p. 227. Et alibi passim.
4 Ip.i. § 17. See p. 91 above.
5 Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. ὃ 32.i. 237. See p. 91 above. Similar. remarks
occur, ib. § 28. i. 234,
102 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
passage, also quoted above, he says,—‘ To all created beings,
“ and especially to us men, it is impossible to speak worthily
“ of things which are beyond our power of expression; and
“it is still more audacious for those who cannot express
“ them to excogitate new words beyond those of the Scriptures.” *
Hence, he says to the Arians,—“ Let them tell us from what
“ Scriptures they have learnt, or from which of the sacred
“‘ writers they have heard, the phrases which they have heaped
“ together for themselves,—namely, ‘ From things not existing ;’
“ and, ‘ He was not before he was begotten,’ ” ἕο.
And when the Nicene Fathers entered upon their delibera-
tions, their great desire and intention was, he tells us, to deter-
mine the controversy by “words that were confessedly words of
Scripture,’ *® and that they adopted the word “ consubstantial ”
on the consideration that it was merely equivalent to the expres-
sions used in several passages of Scripture, which they collected
together, in order to obtain the sense of Scripture on the doc-
trine in question.*
And therefore he says further to the Arians,—“ But if they
“‘ again complain, that these words are not in Scripture, let them
“ be at once rejected as empty talkers, and of unsound mind.
« And for this they may blame themselves; inasmuch as they
“ themselves first gave cause for the use of such phrases, when
“ they began to fight against God, by words not in Scripture-
« But, nevertheless, let any one who wishes to know the truth,
“ understand, that, although the phrases do not literally exist
“in the Scriptures, yet, as has before been said, they have
* the meaning that is derived from the Scriptures; and when
“ pronounced, convey this meaning to those whose ears are
“ sound for piety.”®
1 ΤΡ. Ep. 1. ad Serap. ὃ 17. i. 666. See vol. ii. pp. 189, 190 above.
2 Εἰπάτωσαν ἡμῖν ἐκ ποίων αὐτοὶ γραφῶν μαθόντες, ἢ mapa τίνος τῶν ἁγίων
ἀκούσαντες, συμπεφορήκασιν ἑαυτοῖς ῥημάτια, τὸ, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν
γεννηθῇ, κι τ. A. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 18. i. 228.
3 Ip. Ad Afros Episc. Epist. § 5. i. 895. See p. 71 above.
* Ip. ib. ὃ 6. 1. 896. See p. 72 above.
5 Ei δὲ ὅτι καὶ μὴ ἔγγραφοί εἰσι πάλιν γογγύζουσιν, αὐτόθεν μὲν αὐτοὶ ἐκβαλ-
λέσθωσαν ὡς κενολογοῦντες καὶ τὸν νοῦν οὐχ ὑγιαίνοντες" ἑαυτοὺς δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις
αἰτιάσθωσαν, ὅτι πρῶτοι παρασχόντες τὴν τοιαύτην πρόφασιν, ἐξ ἀγράφων θεομα-
χεῖν ἤρξαντο. Γινωσκέτω δὲ ὅμως, εἴ τίς ἐστὶ φιλομαθὴς, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἐν
Ταῖς γραφαῖς εἰσιν αἱ λέξεις, ἀλλὰ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, τὴν ἐκ τῶν γρα-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 103
How, in the face of these passages, the Tractators can have
made such statements as they have respecting the way in which
Athanasius and the Nicene Council arrived at the doctrine of
the consubstantiality of the Son, and adopted the phrase “ con-
substantial,” is inconceivable.
And before I pass on, I would direct the attention of the
reader to the direct mis-translation of the Benedictines of a
passage just quoted, where the word I have translated “ the
sacred writers” (τῶν ἁγίων), meaning “ the writers of Scripture,”
is interpreted “‘the Fathers” (Patribus). To any one at all ac-
quainted with the phraseology of the Fathers, I need not add a
word to show that this is a mis-translation; but, in a note
below, I have given some references which will enable any one
to judge.*
Let us proceed, however, to other passages in the writings of
Athanasius, illustrative of this question.
In his first Oration against the Arians, he says,—“ If they
“should be suspected of such sentiments, they shall be over-
** whelmed by proofs from the Scriptures,’”—not by the inter-
pretation given to Scripture by Tradition, but by “ proofs from
the Scriptures.”’?
Again : “ This,” he says, “ we must especially inquire, Whether
“he is Son; and respecting this, must before all things search
“the Scriptures.” ὃ
av διάνοιαν ἔχουσι, καὶ ταύτην ἐκφωνούμεναι σημαΐνουσι τοῖς ἔχουσιν εἰς εὐσέ-
βειαν τὴν ἀκοὴν ὁλόκληρον. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 21. i. 226, 7.
1 Thus, in a passage in the same treatise, but just preceding that quoted
above, it is said, with reference to the writers of Scripture, Οὕτω yap ἡμᾶς
οἱ ἅγιοι βουλόμενοι νοεῖν, τοιαῦτα Kal παραδείγματα δεδώκασι. De decret.
Nic. Syn. ὃ 12. i. 219. The phrase occurs also in the same sense in
his treatise, De sent. Dionys. § 2. i. 244. And frequently in his Orations
against the Arians, as Orat. i. § 63. i. 467. Orat. 2. § 5. 1, 473. ib. § 6. 1. 474.
ib. § 63. 1.531. And elsewhere passim. And so the phrase is used continually
by the other Fathers. As, for instance, by GREGORY NyssEN, Contra Eunom.
orat. 9. ii. 254. ed. 1615. It is quite true, that the word ayiwy may some-
times be found connected with πατέρων, in reference to the Nicene, or other
Fathers; but the emphatic phrase, of ἅγιοι, when applied to the writers of the
Church, belongs peculiarly to the inspired writers.
2 Ἐάν τε ὑπονοηθῶσι, βληθήσονται παρὰ πάντων τοῖς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ἐλέγχοις,
In. Orat. i. contr. Arian. ὃ 10. i. 414.
3 τοῦτο yap πρὸ πάντων δεῖ (ζητεῖν, εἰ vids ἐστι, καὶ περὶ τούτον τὰς γραφὰξ
προηγουμένως ἐρευνᾶν. In, Orat. 2. contr. Arian. ὃ 79, i. 641.
104 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Again ; “ Where did they find, that the counsel or will of God
“ was before his Word; unless, neglecting the Scriptures, they
“ deceitfully embrace the errors of Valentinus?........ Let
“ them, if they please, defend the notions of Valentinus ; but we,
“ having read the divine oracles, have found it written respecting
“ the Son, that ‘he was.’ 21}
Again; “ Who delivered these doctrines to them? Who
“taught them these doctrines? No one, certainly, from the
“ Divine Scriptures.”* This testimony, though indirect, very
forcibly show, how completely the Divine Scriptures were con-
sidered by Athanasius as the only source whence such doctrine
should be taught.
Again; “ Vainly, therefore, do they run about pretending
“ that they demand that there should be councils held for the
*“ sake of the faith. For, the Divine Scripture ts more competent
““ [to determine the faith] than all other things.” ὃ
Again ; “ Either, therefore, reject the Divine Scriptures, or,
“aif you admit them, do not think to speak words of incurable
‘ deceit, other than and beyond those that are written.” *
Again ; “ If, therefore, ye are disciples of the Gospels, speak
“ not injustice against God, but walk by those things that are
“ written, and have been done. But if you wish to speak other
“ things beyond those that are written, why do you contend
“ against us, who can endure neither to hear or speak anything
“ beyond the things that are written.... What enormous folly
“is this of yours to speak things that are not written, and to
* think things contrary to piety ἢ ὃ
1 Αὐτοὶ δὲ ποῦ ἄρα βούλησιν ἢ θέλησιν προηγουμένην εὗρον τοῦ λόγου τοῦ
Θεοῦ, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὰς γραφὰς ἀφέντες, ὑποκρίνονται καὶ τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου κακόνοιαν ;
tetas ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν τὰ Οὐαλεντίνου (ζηλεύτωσαν: ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐντυχόντες τοῖς
θείοις Χόγοις, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ, τὸ ἦν, εὕρομεν. Ld. Orat. iii. contr. Arian. § 60.
i. 608, 9.
2 Tis γὰρ αὐτοῖς παρέδωκε ταῦτα; τίς ὁ διδάξας ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἐκ τῶν θείων
γραφῶν. ΤΡ. Ep. 4. ad Serap. § ὅ. i. P. 2. p. 700.
3 Μάτην γοῦν περιτρέχοντες προφασίζνται διὰ πίστιν ἠξιωκέναι γενέσθαι τὰς
συνόδους. Ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἱκανωτέρα πάντων ἣ θεία γραφή. ΤΡ. De Synod. § 6.
i. P. 2. p. 720.
4*H τοίνυν ἀρνήσασθε τὰς θείας γραφὰς, ἢ ταύτας ὁμολογοῦντες, μὴ ἕτερα
παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐπινοεῖτε λαλεῖν ῥήματα ἀπάτης dvidrov. Ip, Contr. Apoll.
lib. i. § 6. i. P. 2. p. 926.
ἢ Εἰ τοίνυν μαθηταί ἐστε τῶν εὐαγγελίων, μὴ λαλεῖτε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀδικίαν"
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 105
And, in the Fragment of his Festal Epistle, after having
enumerated the books of the Old and New Testament, he adds,
—* These are the wells of salvation, that he who thirsts may be
“ filled with the oracles contained in these books. In these
“alone the doctrine (or, school) of true religion is proclaimed.
“ Tet no one add to them, nor take away anything from
“them.” }
Lastly, I would recall to the remembrance of the reader a
passage already quoted in a former page,” which, however, occurs
in a treatise that is classed by the Benedictines among those of
doubtful authorship, and with which, therefore, he may deal as
he pleases.®
Moreover, Athanasius distinctly recognises the completeness of
Scripture as the Rule of faith.
« As you desire,” he says, on one occasion to a person to whom
he was writing, “to hear something on this subject, we will, as
“ far as we are able, give a brief exposition of the Christian
“ faith; which, indeed, you might have found from the divine
“« oracles ; but, nevertheless, politely hear also from others.
“ For, INDEED, THE HOLY AND INSPIRED SCRIPTURES ARE
“‘ SUFFICIENT OF THEMSELVES TO MAKE KNOWN THE TRUTH.”*
ἀλλὰ στοιχεῖτε τοῖς γεγραμμένοις καὶ γενομένοις. Ei de ἕτερα παρὰ τὰ γεγραμ-
μένα λαλεῖν βούχεσθε, τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς διαμάχεσθε, τοὺς μὴτε ἀκούειν, μὴτε λέγειν»
παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα πειθομένους ; .... Τίς ὑμῶν ἣ τοσαύτη ἀπόνοια τῆς ἀμετρίας,
λαλεῖν τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα, καὶ φρονεῖν ἀλλότρια τῆς εὐσεβείας - ID. Contr. Apoll.
lib. i. 88 8, 9. i. P. 2. pp. 928, 9.
1 Ταῦτα πηγαὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου, ὥστε τὸν διψῶντα τῶν ἐν τούτοις ἐμφορεῖσθαι
λογίων: ἐν τούτοις μόνοις τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας διδασκαλεῖον εὐαγγελίζεται. Μηδεὶς
τούτοις ἐπιβαλλέτω, μηδὲ τούτων ἀφαιρείσθω τι. ID. Fragm. ex Epist. Fest.
i. P. 2. p. 962.
2 See vol. i. pp. 68, 69.
3 The passage in the original is as follows:—’Eme) τοίνυν ἠκούσαμεν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν
τινας ταράττεσθαι καὶ (ζητεῖν. γράμματα παρ᾽ ἡμῶν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς Kal ἐξ ἄπο-
στόλων εἰσαχθείσης πίστεως, γράφομεν, ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἀκρίβειαν αὐτῆς ἐπιζητεῖν
ὀλίγων ἐστὶ, τὴν δὲ πίστιν κατέχειν, ἁπάντων τῶν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν εὐπειθῶν, οἵ καὶ
μέγιστον ἔπαινον ἀποφέρονται τῆς ἐπιθυμίας. ὋὉ μὲν γὰρ ζητῶν τὰ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτὸν,
ἐπικίνδυνος" ὃ δὲ τοῖς παροδοθείσιν ἐμμένων, ἀκίνδυνος. Παραινοῦμεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ὅπερ
καὶ ἑαυτοῖς παραινοῦμεν, τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν πίστιν φυλάττειν, ἐκτρέπεσθαι δὲ τὰς
βεβήλους καινοφωνίας, καὶ τοῦτο πᾶσι παρεγγυᾷν φοβεῖσθαι τὴν περὶ τοῦ τηλικαύτου
μυστηρίου ζήτησιν' ὁμολογεῖν δὲ, ὅτι πεφανέρωται Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ, κατὰ τὴν ἀπο-
στολικὴν παράδοσιν. ΤΡ. De incarn. Verbi Dei. § 2, tom. ii. p. 84.
4 Ποθοῦντι δέ σοι ὕμως τὰ περὶ ταύτης ἀκοῦσαι, φέρε, ὦ μακάριε, ws by οἷοί τε
106 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Again; in the passage which has been so misquoted by Mr.
Newman, he bears a similar testimony in the very words which
have been cited against us. “I have written these things,
“ beloved ; although, indeed, there was no need to write any-
“ thing more, for the Evangelical Tradition is sufficient of itself ;
“ but because you inquired respecting our faith, and on account
“« of those who love to make sport with the faith by their inven-
“ tions, and do not consider, that he who speaks from his own
private fancies, speaks a lie. For it is not possible for the
“( wit of man to declare fully the beauty or glory of the body of
“ Christ. But it is possible for us both to confess the things that
“ have been done, according as they are recorded in Scripture, and
““ to worship the true God.’”?
And, as it respects its full delivery of particular doctrines, we
have clear testimonies in Athanasius affirmative of this, in both
the doctrines which his writings were more particularly intended
to support, namely, the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the
Son with the Father (as we have seen in the passages but just
now quoted), and that of the divinity of the Holy Spirit ; respect-
ing which he says, “ Let not any one any longer ask such
* questions, but learn only what is in the Scriptures ; for the
“ illustrations we have of this matter in them, are sufficient of them-
* selves, and need no addition.” 3
From these passages, then, I suppose we may conclude, that,
in Athanasius’s view, Scripture was the sole and entire Rule of
faith ; Tradition forming no part of it, either as adding doctrines
to those there revealed, or as interpretative of the revelation
there made.
ὦμεν, ὀλίγα τῆς κατὰ Χριστὸν πίστεως ἐκθώμεθα, δυναμένῳ μέν σοι καὶ ἀπὸ τῶι
θείων λογίων ταὐτὴν εὑρεῖν, φιλοκάλως δὲ ὅμως καὶ wap’ ἑτέρων ἀκούοντι. *AuTdp-
κεις μὲν γάρ εἶσιν αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἄπαγ-
γελίαν. ΤΡ. Orat. contr. Gent. § 1. 1. 1.
1 Ταῦτα ἔγραψα, ἀγαπητέ: κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα οὐδὲν πλέον ἔδεί γράφειν" αὐτάρκης
yap ἣ εὐαγγελικὴ παράδοσις" ἄλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἠρώτησας περὶ τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν πίστεως, καὶ
ἕνεκά γε τῶν ἐρεσχελεῖν βουλομένων ταῖς ἐφευρέσεσι, καὶ οὐ λογιζομένων, ὅτι
ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλῶν, τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖ. Οὔτε γὰρ κάλλος, οὔτε δόξαν σώματος
Χριστοῦ ἐφικτὸν διανοίᾳ ἀνθρώπου ἐξειπεῖν. ᾿Αλλά γε καὶ τὰ γενόμενα, ὡς γέγραπται,
ὁμολογεῖν, καὶ τὸν ὄντα Θεὸν προσκυνεῖν, κι τ. A. Ip. Contr. Apoll. lib. i. § ult.
P. 2. pp- 939, 40.
® Ip, Ep. i. ad Serap. ὃ 19. i. P. 2. p. 667. See vol. ii. 189, 190 above.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 107
But, as some passages are adduced both by the Romanists
and the Tractators, as if they affirmed their views, we will con-
sider them before we proceed further. Some of these passages
we have formerly noticed; and for them, therefore, refer the
reader to what has been already said respecting them.! Others
are quoted, through a mistaken view of the meaning of the
phrases used ; and the rest imply no more than what we will-
ingly allow, namely, that the Fathers, like ourselves, referred to
the testimony of those who preceded them, in confirmation of
the truth of their doctrines.
Thus, Mr. Keble quotes, as supporting his view of Tradition,
the passage in the Second Epistle to Serapion, in which Atha-
nasius, laying down what he calls the form or outline (χαρακτὴρ)
of the faith in Christ, says, “ This form comes from the Apostles,
through the Fathers.” * But, in the first place, the Fathers here
mentioned are, as will be seen by a reference to the context, the
Nicene Fathers,* a sense in which the word is continually used by
Athanasius,‘not “the Fathers,” in Mr. Keble’s sense of the phrase,
as indicating the Catholic Consent of all from the begining.
This is a mistake we have already had occasion to point out in ano-
ther passage, quoted both by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble, where
the context alike shows the error.’ Moreover, the passage only
states a fact which we are far from questioning, and far from
reckoning a poor argument for that which is so confirmed, namely,
that the doctrine in question was taught by many bishops of the
Primitive Church. But Athanasius neither here nor anywhere
else, makes their testimony part of the Rule of faith. And as
to Mr. Keble’s notion that this passage shows us, that Atha-
nasius held, that, for “ the form of the faith m Christ,’ we must
go to the Fathers, as if it was not as fully and clearly delivered
in the Scriptures, it is altogether overthrown by a passage in a
1 See vol. i. pp. 65 et seq.; and pp. 88—91 of this volume.
2 Ὁ μὲν χαρακτὴρ οὗτος ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων διὰ τῶν πατέρων. ID. Ep. 2. ad
Serap. § 8, i. P. 2. p. 688. See Keble’s Serm. App. pp. 124, 5.
3 Οὕτω yap καὶ of πατέρες νοήσαντες, ὡμολόγησαν ἐν TH κατὰ Νίκαιαν συνόδῳ,
k.7T. A. Io. ib. § ὅ. 1. P. 2. p. 686.
4 See De Synod. ὃ 6. i. P. 2. p. 720. Ep. ad Jovian. §§ 1, 2. passim. i. P. 2. p. 780)
781. De incarn. Dom. contr. Apoll. lib, i. §§ 1, 2. i, P. 2. p. 922.
5 See vol. i. pp. 69—71.
108 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
fragment of a Letter to the Monks, in which Athanasius,
speaking on the very same point, says,—“ I might also have
considerably extended my letter, by subjoining the form of
“ such doctrines from the Divine Scriptures.” *
The appeal which Athanasius makes in the above, and other
passages, is not to the “ Catholic Consent” of all the Fathers,
as a “divine informant,” and part of the Rule of faith, but to
the testimony of certain Fathers, whose suffrage he justly con-
siders as a confirmatory argument in favor of his doctrine.
And his words have the same meaning in several other pas-
sages, which are often quoted against our views; as the context
will at once show.
Again ; after having quoted four of the preceding Fathers in
defence of the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with
the Father, he says,—“ Lo, we give you proof that this doctrine
“has passed down from Fathers to Fathers ; but you, ye new
“ Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, what Fathers have you to
“ show as supporters of your phrases? You could name none
“ of the prudent and wise. For all abhor you, except the devil
“ only.”® New, certainly, this language is sufficiently violent,
especially when we recollect that one of the four, to whom he
appealed, was Origen, who was subsequently condemned by the
majority of the Church for opposing the doctrine which Atha-
nasius here quotes him as maintainmg; and that Jerome
admits, that many of the earlier writers had spoken erroneously
on the point; but, nevertheless, all that it amounts to is, that
certain of the Fathers had maintained the doctrine, and that
Athanasius did not believe, that Arius could produce any such
authority for his views; and consequently that besides the
Scripture-proof, he had a strong argument from Antiquity m
favor of the doctrine. But what then? Weare far from deny-
1 “ Possibile quidem erat mihi etiam per multa extendere epistolam, appo-
nenti ex Scripturis divinis formam ejusmodi doctrine,” ἄς, Ip. Ep. ad Mon. i.
BP. 2.9. 96%.
2 "Ιδοὺ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐκ πατέρων εἰς πατέρας διαβεβηκέναι Thy τοιαύτην διάνοιαν ἂπο-
δεικνύομεν" ὑμεῖς δὲ, ὦ νέοι Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ τοῦ Καιάφα μαθηταὶ, τίνας ἄρα τῶν ῥημά-
των ὑμῶν ἔχετε δεῖξαι πατέρας ; ἀλλ᾽ ὀυδένα τῶν φρονίμων καὶ σοφῶν ἂν εἴποιτε.
πάντες γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀποστρέφονται, πλὴν μόνου τοῦ διαβόλου, Ip. De decret. Nic.
Syn. ὃ 27. i. 233.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 109
ing the successional preaching of the orthodox doctrine in the
Church, or that the indications of that delivery of it contained in
the writings of the Fathers, are an important confirmation of the
true faith. Nay, we think that in the case of any fundamental
doctrine, it would be absurd to suppose, that all the writers of
the Primitive Church should have erred; and therefore that,
considering the number of writings that remain to us of the
first four or five centuries, it is but reasonable to require, that
any doctrine, put forth as fundamental, should have some
support in those writings. And therefore we quite agree with
Athanasius in his remark respecting the Arians,— If they
“ confess, that they have now first heard these things, let them
“not deny, that this heresy is foreign [to the Church], and
“‘ not from Fathers. But that which is not from Fathers, but
“ invented now, what else can it be, but that of which the
“blessed Paul foretold, ‘In the last times some shall depart
“ from the sound faith,’ &c.”’! The truth of this, few, I suppose,
will deny.
But where, I ask, is it intimated in these, or any other pas-
sages of Athanasius, that the testimony of a few Fathers is to
be taken as an adequate proof and representation of Catholic
Consent for several centuries, infallibly conveying to us the oral
teaching of the Apostles; and giving us a revelation of divine
truth, more full and clear than what we have in Scripture ; and
thus forming part of the Rule of faith? No; on the contrary,
the writings of Athanasius clearly and abundantly show, (as we
have seen,) that he considered Scripture the sole and entire Rule
of faith ; yes, and the source from which all were to certify
themselves of the faith, for he says,—“ The true and pious faith
‘in the Lord has stood forth evident ¢o al/, bemg known and
“ yead out of the divine Scriptures.’’?
In fact, of Tradition, in the sense in which the Romanists
and the Tractators use the term, namely, as something coming
1 Εἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ πρῶτον νῦν ὁμολογοῦσιν ἀκηκοέναι τὰ τοιαῦτα, μή ἄρνείσθωσαν
ἀλλοτρίαν καὶ μὴ ἐκ πατέρων εἶναι τὴν αἵρεσιν ταύτην. Τὸ δὲ μὴ ἐκ πατέρων,
ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐφευρεθὲν, τί ἂν εἴη ἕτερον ἢ περὶ οὗ προείρηκεν ὅ μακάριος Παῦλος"
ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, kK. τ. A. ID,
Orat. 1. contr. Arian. § 8. i. 412.
3 Ip. Ep. ad Jovian. 8 1. i. P. 2. p. 780. See p. 89 above.
110 THE DOCTRINE.OF THE FATHERS
to us from the oral teaching of the Apostles, above and beyond
Scripture, through a successional delivery by all the Fathers, we
meet with not one syllable in the writings of Athanasius.
Cyrit or JERUSALEM. (fl. a. 350.)
I proceed to Cyril of Jerusalem, and offer to the reader
the following extracts from his Catechetical Lectures to those
about to be baptized.
First, as it respects Scripture being the sole authoritative
Rule of faith.
After giving a brief account of the principal articles of the
Christian faith, he says,—‘ Retain this seal ever in thy mind,
“the principal points of which have now been briefly enu-
“ merated. But if the Lord permit, they shall be discussed, as
“far as I am able, with Scripture-proof. For, as it respects -
“the divine and holy mysteries of.the faith, not even the least
“not ought to be delivered without the divine Scriptures,
“ nothing asserted nakedly without proof, by probable reason-
“‘ ing and oratorical statements. Nay, YoU MUST NOT BELIEVE
‘ME, WHEN I] DECLARE THESE THINGS TO YOU NAKEDLY
““ WITHOUT PROOF, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE PROOF OF THE
*‘ THINGS SPOKEN FROM THE Divine Scriprures.”!
To see the full force of this passage, we must recollect, that
it is addressed to the young, to those about to be baptized ;
and to them it is said by Cyril, that they were not to believe
him, except so far as they should find him to be borne out by
the declarations of Scripture; so far is he from asserting, that
the interpretation of Scripture which he gave, was binding -
upon the conscience, and the proper object of faith. And,
moreover, this is said with reference to the Creed, which is em-
1 Ταύτην ἔχε τὴν σφραγίδα ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ σου πάντοτε, ἥτις νῦν μὲν κατὰ ἄνα-
κεφαλαίωσιν ἀκροθιγῶς εἴρηται. Ei δὲ παράσχοι ὃ Κύριος, μετὰ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν
ἀποδείξεως κατὰ δύναμιν ῥηθήσεται. Δεῖ γὰρ περὶ τῶν θείων καὶ ἁγίων τῆς πίστεως
μυστηρίων, μηδὲ τὸ τυχὺν ἄνευ τῶν θείων παραδίδοσθαι γραφῶν, μηδὲ ἁπλῶς πιθα-
νότητι καὶ λόγων κατασκευαῖς παραφέρεσθαι. Μηδὲ ἐμοὶ τῷ ταῦτά σοι λέγοντι
ἁπλῶς πιστεύσῃς, ἐὰν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν καταγγελλομένων ἀπὸ τῶν θείων μὴ λάβῃς
γραφῶν. CYRILL, H1ERosot. Catech. 4. § 12. Op. ed. Milles. Oxon. 1703. p. 56.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 117
phatically put forward by the Tractators as part of the Rule of
faith, and a divine revelation, quite independent of Scripture.
Again, he says,—“ There is need truly of spiritual grace,
“that we may discourse of the Holy Spirit. Not that we may
“ speak worthily of the subject, for that is impossible ; but that,
“ speaking the things which we learn from the Divine Scrip-
“ tures, we may proceed without danger.’’!
He knew nothing of an infallible interpretation of Scrip-
ture, derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, and handed
down by “ Tradition.”
Further; as to the perfection of Scripture. He says,—
*‘ What else is there that knows the deep things of God, but
“only the Holy Spirit that uttered the Divine Scriptures ?
* But neither hath the Holy Spirit himself spoken in the
“ Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the
“ Father. Why, therefore, do you curiously inquire after that
“ which the Holy Spirit hath not written in the Scriptures?
“Do you, who know not what is written, curiously imquire
“ after that which is not written? There are many subjects
* for inquiry in the Divine Scriptures, [and] we do not fully
“comprehend that which is written; why do we curiously
* inquire after what is not written ?”’*
Again; “Therefore let those things be spoken by us con-
* cerning the Holy Spirit which are written. And if anything
“is not written, let us not curiously inquire after it. The Holy
“ Spirit himself hath uttered the Scriptures, and hath himself
* snoken concerning himself as much as he pleased, and as much as
“we are capable of receiving. Therefore let those things be
“ spoken which he has uttered ; for what he hath not spoken, we
“ dare not speak.”’*
1 Πνευματικῆς ἀληθῶς χρεία τῆς χάριτος, ἵνα περὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου διαλεχθῶμεν"
οὐχ ἵνα κατ᾽ ἀξίαν εἴπωμεν: ἀδύνατον yap: GAN ἵνα τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν θεῖων γραφῶν
εἰπόντες ἀκινδύνως διέλθωμεν. ΤΡ. Cat. 16. ὃ 1. p. 223.
3 τί ἐστιν ἕτερον γινώσκον τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰ μὴ μόνον τὸ Πνεῦμα το ἅγιον
τὸ λαλῆσαν τὰς θείας γραφάς: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον περὶ τῆς ἐκ
Πατρὸς τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ γεννήσεως ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ἐλάλησεν. Τί τοίνυν πολυπραγμονεῖς,
ἃ μηδὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔγραψεν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ; ὁ τὰ γεγραμμένα μὴ γινώ-
σκων, τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα πολυπραγμονεῖς ; Πολλὰ ζητήματά ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς θείαις
γραφαῖς, τὸ γεγραμμένον οὐ καταλαμβάνομεν, τί τὸ μὴ γεγραμμένον πολυπραγ-
μονοῦμεν ; Ip. Cat. 11. § 4. pp. 140, 1.
3 Λεγέσθω τοίνυν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν περὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὰ γεγραμμένα. El δέ τι μὴ
112 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Again; “It is sufficient for us to know these things. But
“as to nature or hypostasis, do not curiously search into it.
« For, if it was written, we would declare it. It is not written,
“ Jet us not dare to do so. It is sufficient for our salvation, to
“ know that there is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”?
Again; “Not using, even to-day, human imaginations, for
“ that would be unprofitable; but only puTTING YOU IN MIND
« or those things which we learn from the Divine Scriptures ; for
“that is the safest; according to the blessed Apostle, who
“ says, ‘which things we speak, not in the words which man’s
“ wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, com-
“ paring spiritual things with spiritual.’ 5
But it may be said, (for it has been said by those who would
fain make us believe that every passage in the Fathers, in which
the word tradition (παράδοσις) is mentioned with favor, is a
support to the views we are opposing,) that Cyril says, in
another place, “ Be careful, therefore, brethren, and hold fast the
* traditions which ye now receive.... God will require of you
“an account of the deposit committed to your keeping.”? True ;
and what does he mean by these “traditions” ? Let his own
words in the previous context explain,— Hold fast the faith
“ Tor, Creed] both in knowledge and profession, and keep it ;
“ that only, I mean, which is now delivered (tradited) to thee by
“ the Church, and which is established from the whole Scrip-
“ ture ;”* and of this Creed he adds, “ The articles of the Creed
γέγραπται, μὴ πολυπραγμονῶμεν. Αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα Td ἅγιον ἐλάλησε τὰς γραφάς"
αὐτὸ καὶ περὶ αὑτοῦ εἴρηκεν ὕσα ἐβούλετο, καὶ ὅσα ἐχωροῦμεν: λεγέσθω οὖν ἃ
εἴρηκεν" ὅσα γὰρ οὐκ εἴρηκεν, ἡμεῖς οὐ τολμῶμεν. Id. Cat, 16, § 1. p. 294.
" Καὶ αὔταρκες ἡμῖν εἰδέναι ταῦτα’ φύσιν δὲ, ἢ ὑπόστασιν μὴ πολυπραγμόνει"
εἰ γὰρ ἦν γεγραμμένον, ἐλέγομεν’ οὐ γέγραπται, μὴ τολμήσωμεν: αὕταρκες ἡμῖν
εἰδέναι πρὸς σωτηρίαν, ὅτι ἐστὶ πατὴρ, καὶ vids, καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Ip. Cat. 16.
§ 12. pp. 236, 7.
3. Οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνοις καὶ σήμερον κεχρημένοι σοφίσμασιν: ἀσύμφορον yap: ἀλλὰ τὰ
ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν μόνον ὑπομιμνήσκοντες" ἀσφαλέστατον γὰρ, κατὰ τὸν μακά-
ριον ᾿Απόστολον, ὃς καί φησιν" & καὶ λαλοῦμεν, οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας
λόγοις, GAN ἐν διδακτοῖς Πνεύματος, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες. ID.
Cat, 17, ὃ 1, p. 241.
3 Βλέπετε οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις, ἃς νῦν παραλαμβάνετε
sees Θεὸς δὲ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀπαιτεῖ τῆς παρακαταθήκης τοὺς λόγους. ID. Cat. ὅ.
§ 8. p. 76. ὲ
4 Πίστιν δὲ ἐν μαθήσει καὶ ἐπαγγελίᾳ κτῆσαι, καὶ τήρησον, μόνην τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 113
“ were not, as it appears, composed by men; but the most suit-
* able passages collected together out of the whole Scripture,
“ make up one form of instruction in the faith. And asa grain
“ of mustard seed contains, in a small grain, many branches,
“ thus, also, the Creed itself embraces, in a few words, the whole
“ knowledge of religion revealed to us in the Old and New Testa-
“ment. Be careful, therefore, and hold fast the traditions,
“ &c.”1 These traditions, therefore, were the articles of the
Creed; which articles were expressed in language carefully
taken from Scripture ; the Creed being a collection of suitable
passages selected from the whole Scripture, to give a brief and
comprehensive view of the principal points of the Christian
faith. The word “traditions,” therefore, is here evidently
merely equivalent to “instructions ;” or at least has not the
meaning in which the Tractators use the word “ traditions.”
The translation and comment given by Mr. Newman to the
above passage, are worthy of notice. He translates it thus;
“ Learn and hold fast thy faith in what is taught and promised ;
“ that faith which alone is now delivered to thee BY TRADITIONS
“ op THE Cuurcu, and established from Scripture.”* And he
quotes it as showing, that Cyril “distinguishes between Tradi-
tion as teaching, and Scripture as proving, verifying doctrine.”
Upon the various errors in the translation of these few lines»
I say nothing; but to its bad faith, in the introduction of the
phrase, “ traditions of the Church,’ I cannot but call the atten-
tion of the reader. The passage is merely a request by Cyril to
his hearers, to attend to that which the Church, through him,
was delivering to them as the Christian faith. And there is not
one word about “ Tradition teaching.” And what possible ad-
vantage could Mr. Newman’s cause gain by it, if there was ;
when Cyril himself cautions his hearers not to believe one word
ἐκκλησίας νυνί σοι παραδιδομένην, τὴν ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς ὀχυρωμένην. Ib. Cat. 5.
; : Ae ὡς ἔδοξεν, ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς πίστεως, GAA’ ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς
τὰ καιριώτατα συλλεχθέντα, μίαν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν τῆς πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. Καὶ
ὅνπερ τρόπον ὃ τοῦ σινάπεως σπόρος ἐν μικρῷ κόκκῳ πολλοὺς περιέχει τοὺς κλάδους,
οὕτω καὶ ἣ πίστις αὕτη ἐν ὀλίγοις ῥήμασι πᾶσαν τὴν ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ καὶ καινῇ τῆς
εὐσεβείας γνῶσιν ἐγκεκόλπισται. Βλέπετε οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, κ. τ. A. μέ supra. Iv.
Cat. 5. §§ 7, 8. p. 76.
2 NewMan’s Lect. on Rom. &c. pp. 385, 6.
VOL. ΤΙ. I
114 THE DOCTRINE, OF THE FATHERS
he was about to say, but as they should see it to be proved by
Scripture? The sole question is, whether there is any authori-
tative teaching, forming part of the Rule of faith, but Seripture ;
and Cyril here expressly affirms the negative. That Patristical
Tradition, or the instruction of the Fathers, teaches, and, so far
as it proceeds from orthodox Fathers, teaches the true faith, and
that the ministers of the Church teach the faith, and the Church
through them, is all perfectly true; and, we may add, that
they teach it from Scripture, and refer their hearers to Serip-
ture, as Cyril does here, to test their instructions, and see that
they teach the true faith, is equally true. But what then?
Does that avail Mr. Newman’s cause? No; the only thing
that would serve his cause, would be a statement that the oral
teaching of the Apostles had been perpetuated, by a succes-
sional delivery, from one to another in the Church, and is still
to us the authoritative mterpreter of Scripture, teaching us its
meaning with sovereign authority, and forming part of the Rule
of faith, under the name of “ Tradition ;” in which sense, chiefly,
the word “Tradition” has been used by the moderns, and is
exclusively applied by the Tractators. And to make the
Fathers appear to intimate this, Mr. Newman translates the
words “ delivered to thee by the Church,” thus—“ delivered to
thee by traditions of the Church ;” thereby leading into error
both himself and others. For Cyril himself tells us, that the
articles delivered, were gathered from the Scriptures. They were
not, therefore, traditions in that technical sense of the word in
which the Tractators use it. And, as it often happens in such
eases, Mr. Newman’s cause would gain nothing by his mis-
translation, when it came to be compared with the context ; for,
if it had been correct, the context would only have testified the
more strongly in condemnation of his views of the authority of
“Tradition.”
Hirary or Poicriers. (fl. a. 354.)
I proceed to the excellent Hilary of Poictiers, whose writings
deserve more attention than they have received.
“No one,” saith Hilary, “ought to doubt, that, for the
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 115
“ knowledge of divine things, we must use divine instructions
“.... Therefore, in opposition to the wicked and impious in-
“ structions that are given respecting God, we follow the autho-
“ yitative testimonies themselves of the divine words.”!
These words, undeniably spoken with reference to Scripture,
clearly prove, that Hilary recognised no other divine informant
but Scripture ; and hence considered Scripture the sole authori-
tative Rule in matters of faith.
Again; “How much do we stand in need of God’s grace,
“ that we may entertain correct views, and, from the Prophetical
“and Evangelical authorities, maintain one and the same doc-
“trine!””? This passage appears to me particularly forcible in
proof of Scripture being looked to by Hilary as the sole Rule of
faith ; and that he considered unity of view in its correct inter-
pretation, to flow, not from “ Tradition,’ but from “ God’s
grace,” enlightening the mind, and enabling it to receive the
truth.
Again; “ When the discourse shall relate to the things of
“ God, let us grant to God the knowledge of himself, and wait
“upon his words with pious veneration ;”* where, by the words
of God, he evidently means Scripture.
Again ; “‘ We are compelled, by the follies of heretics and
“blasphemers, to do that which is not lawful, to climb up to
“ things beyond our reach, to speak clearly of things that are
“ ineffable, to assume a knowledge of things not revealed. And
* when it became us to fulfil the things that are commanded us,
“ with a simple faith, namely, to adore the Father, and venerate
“with him the Son, and abound in the Holy Spirit, we are
“ obliged to stretch the meanness of our discourse to those things
“ that are unspeakable, and are forced into an act of folly, by
“ the folly of others; so that those things that ought to have
1 “Nemini dubium esse oportet, ad divinarum rerum cognitionem divinis
utendum esse doctrinis.... Sequimur ergo adversus irreligiosas et impias de
Deo institutiones, ipsas illas divinorum dictorum auctoritates.” HILARII ΡΙΟΤΑΥ.
De Trin. lib. 4. ὃ 14. Op. ed. Bened. Par. 1693. col. 835.
2 «Quanta opus est nobis Dei gratia, ut recta sapiamus, ut ex propheticis
atque evangelicis auctoritatibus unum idemque teneamus.” IpEM. Tract. in
Ps. 118. [119 apud nos] Litt. i. § 12. col. 249.
3 «Cum de rebus Dei erit sermo, concedamus cognitionem sui Deo, dictisque
ejus pia veneratione famulemur.”’ Ip. De Trin. lib, 1. § 18. col. 777.
12
116 THE DOCTRINE. OF THE FATHERS
ce
ce
been only matters of religious contemplation, are now exposed
to the danger of human language [which can but imperfectly
express them]. For there have been many who were resolved
to understand the plain declarations of the heavenly oracles,
in the meaning which their own wishes dictated, not with a
simple regard to truth ; interpreting them differently from what
the force of the words demanded. For heresy is derived from
the meaning given to Scripture, not from Scripture .... Their
unbelief, therefore, draws us into a position of doubt and dan-
ger, rendering it necessary to produce, respecting things so
great and recondite, something beyond the heavenly Rule. The
Lord had said, that the nations were to be baptized ‘in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’
The form of the faith is certain; but as far as the heretics are
concerned, the whole sense is uncertain. Nothing, therefore,
is to be added to the [divine] precepts, but a limit is to be
assigned to human audacity ; that since the malignity that
has been roused at the instigation of diabolical deceit eludes
the truth of things through the names of nature, we may show
the nature and meaning of the names; and the dignity and
office of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being set forth, as
far as words will enable us so to do, the names may not be
defrauded of what belongs to their nature, but at the same
time may by the force of the names be restrained within the
limits of the signification that belongs to their nature....
But that which is required is vast, that of which we are to make
free to speak is incomprehensible, that we should discourse
respecting God beyond what God has declared. He has laid
down the names of nature, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. What-
ever is inquired beyond this is beyond the power of language
to express, beyond what sense can reach, beyond what the
mind can conceive ; it is not expressed, it is not reached, it is
not understood by us.... But we, humbly praying for par-
don for yielding to this necessity from him who is all these,
will venture, will inquire, will speak ; and (which alone we
promise in so vast a question) will believe those things which
shall be made known to us.”’!
* “Compellimur hereticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua
scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa prasumere., Et cum sola fide expleri que
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 117
In this remarkable passage we see, that Hilary, far from sup-
posing that he had an infallible guide in Patristical Tradition
or anything else, conveying to him the doctrine of the Tr:nity
more fully or clearly than it is revealed in Scripture, trembles
at the thought of endeavouring to add anything to what Scrip-
ture says respecting it.
Again; speaking of the true faith as just explained by him,
he says, “ This is the catholic and apostolic confession derived
from the Gospels.” }
Again; he tells us, that “ with respect to all things, he be-
lieved only what had been said by God respecting them ;”?
adding a little further on,— Let us understand, that that only
“ ought to be believed respecting God, for the belief of which
“concerning himself he himself is both the witness and
“ author.” Nay, “ We must not,” he says, “ speak otherwise
precepta sunt, oporteret, adorare videlicet Patrem, et venerari cum eo Filium,
Sancto Spiritu abundare, cogimur sermonis nostri humilitatem ad ea que in-
enarrabilia sunt extendere, et in vitium vitio coartamur alieno; ut qu contineri
religione mentium opportuissent, nunc in periculum humani eloquii proferantur.
Exstiterunt enim plures qui ccelestium verborum simplicitatem pro voluntatis
sue sensu non pro veritatis ipsius absolutione susciperent, aliter interpretantes
quam dictorum virtus postularet. De intelligentia enim hzresis, non de Scriptura
est.... Horum igitur infidelitas in anceps nos ac periculum protrahit, ut necesse
sit de tantis ac tam reconditis rebus aliquid ultra preescriptum cceleste proferre.
Dixerat Dominus baptizandas gentes ‘in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.’
Forma fidei certa est; sed quantum ad hereticos omnis sensus incertus est.
Ergo non preceptis aliquid addendum est, sed modus est constituendus audaciz ;
ut quia malignitas instinctu diabolice fraudulentiz excitata veritatem rerum per
nature nomina eludit, nos naturam nominum proferamus; et editis, prout in
verbis habebimus, dignitate atque officio Patris, Filii, Spiritus Sancti, non frus-
trentur nature proprietatibus nomina, sed intra nature significationem nominibus
coartentur.... Immensum est autem quod exigitur, incomprehensibile est quod
audetur, ut ultra preefinitionem Dei sermo de Deo sit. Posuit nature nomina,
Patrem, Filium, Spiritum Sanctum. Extra significantiam sermonis est, extra
sensus intentionem, extra intelligentize conceptionem, quidquid ultra queritur ;
non enuntiatur, non attingitur, non tenetur.... Sed nos necessitatis hujus ab
eo, qui hee omnia est, veniam deprecantes, audebimus, quzeremus, loquemur ; et,
quod solum in tanta rerum questione promittimus, ea que erunt significata crede-
mus.” Ip. ib. lib. ii. §§ 2, 3, 5. col. 788—91.
1 “Hee de Evangeliis catholica et apostolica confessio est.” Ip. ib. ὃ 22.
col. 799. The context shows the meaning of “de” to be as translated above.
2 “Mihi....tantum de omnibus Deo, ut sunt ab eo dicta, credenti.” In. ib.
lib. iii. § 20. col. 818.
3 « Hoe solum de Deo bene credi intelligamus, ad quod de se credendum ipse
sibi nobiscum et testis et auctor exsistat.” Ip. ib. § 26. col. 824.
118 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ respecting God, than as he himself hath spoken concerning
* himself to our apprehension.”! And,—“ For the discourses of
κε man concerning the things of God, God’s words only are left to
ec us 333
Again; he says,—‘ Either there are other -Gospels to be pro-
“ duced to teach us, or if these only have taught us respecting
“ God, why do we not believe these things as we are there
“taught? But if our knowledge is taken from these enly, why is
“ not our faith derived thence whence our knowledge is derived ?””*
To the Scripture also he directs us to go to confute hereties.
“ Above all things,” he says, “ we hasten to confound their
“madness and ignorance from the Prophetical and Evangelical
“ declarations.”* “I am of opinion that we must reply to the
“ perverseness of the heretics and confute all their foolish and
“ deadly instructions by Evangelical and Apostolical testimonies.
“ For they appear to themselves to give a reason for everything
“‘ which they assert, inasmuch as they have attached to each of
“their assertions some testimonies from the divine volumes,
“ which, bemg perverted from their true meaning, please only
“the ignorant, and give the appearance of truth only from the
“ pravity of the interpreters.... When abcut to answer each
“ of their propositions, and expose the unsoundness of their im-
“ pious doctrine by the testimonies of the divine oracles, we ought,
“ &e.”> And having adduced his proofs from Seripture, he
1 «TLoquendum non aliter de Deo est, quam ut ipse ad intelligentiam nostram
de se locutus est.” In. ib. lib. v. § 21. col. 866.
2 “Non relictus est hominum eloquiis de Dei rebus alius preter quam Dei
sermo.” Ip. lib. vii. § 38. col. 941.
3 “ Aut enim alia sunt Evangelia proferenda que doceant, aut si de Deo sola ista
docuerunt, cur non ita credimus ut docemur? Quod si ex his tantum sumta
cognitio est, cur non exinde fides sit unde cognitio?” In. ib. lib. vii. ὃ 22.
col. $30.
4 «Maxime ergo properamus ex propheticis atque evangelicis preconiis ve-
saniam eorum ignorantiamque confundere.” In. De Trin. lib. i. § 17. col. 776.
> “ Respondendum esse existimo hereticorum perversitati, et omnes eorum
stultas ac mortiferas institutiones evangelicis atque apostolicis testimoniis
eoarguendas. Videntur enim sibi de singulis que asserunt prestare rationem,
quia singulis assertionibus suis quedam ex divinis voluminibus testimonia subdi-
derunt, que corrupto intelligentiz sensu solis tantum ignorantibus blandiantur,
speciem veritatis secundum pravitatem interpretantium prestatura.... Respon-
suri singulis eorum propositionibus, et divinorum dictorum testimoniis irreli-
giosam eorum doctrinam predituri, debemus,” ἄς. Ip. ib. lib. iv. §§ 7, 11. col.
830, 832.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 119
says, “ Hence, O wicked heretic, you may be confuted by Apo-
stolical, by Evangelical, by Prophetical testimonies.”’}
Here, then, we see, that on the very ground on which the
Tractators plead for the necessity of “ Tradition,’ and declare
that heretics can be confuted only by “ Tradition,” namely, that
heretics plead Scripture in their favor, on that very same ground
Hilary tells us, that we must go to Scripture to confute them.
He knew nothing, then, of our opponents’ notion, that as long
as we keep to Scripture only, heretics have a reasonable founda-
tion to rest their errors upon.
Lastly, he thus addresses the Emperor Constantius ;—* Truly
* do I admire thee, Lord Constantius our Emperor, desirous of
“ believing only according to what is delivered in the Scriptures ;
** and, with justice, evidently hastening to those very words them-
“ selves of the only-begotten God, that your breast, though filled
“ with royal cares, may also be filled with the knowledge of the
“ divme words. He who repudiates this, is antichrist; and he
“ who feigns it, is anathema. .... You seek the faith, O Em-
“peror: hear it, not from new writings, but from God’s books.
« ,... Remember, nevertheless, that there is not one of the
* heretics who does not now falsely affirm, that he follows the
“* Scriptures when preaching his blasphemies ... . Hear, THEN,
““ Tentreat you, those things that are written concerning Christ,
“ lest under them those things that are not written be preached.
* Incline your ears to those things which I am about to utter
“ from those books ; rouse your faith towards God. Hear what
“ avails for faith, for unity, for eternity.”*
1 “Hine apostolicis, hine evangelicis, hine propheticis dictis, impie heretice,
concluderis.” In. lib. v. ὃ 33. col. 873.
2 “Vere te, Domine Constanti Imperator, admiror, fidem tantum secundum
ea que scripta sunt desiderantem; et merito plane ad ila ipsa unigeniti Dei
eloquia festinans, ut imperatoriz sollicitudinis capax pectus etiam divinorum
dictorum conscientia plenum sit. Hoe qui repudiat, antichristus est; et qui
simulat, anathema est .... Fidem, Imperator, queris: audi eam non de novis
chartulis, sed de Dei libris. .... Memento tamen neminem hereticorum esse qui
se nunc non secundum Scripturas predicare ea quibus blasphemat mentiatur .. ..
Andi, rogo, ea que de Christo sunt scripta: ne sub eis ea quz non scripta sunt
predicentur. Submitte ad ea que de libris locuturus sum aures tuas; fidem
tuam ad Deum erigas. Audi quod proficit ad fidem, ad unitatem, ad 2ternitatem.”
In. Ad Constant. Aug. lib. ii. §§ 8—10. col. 1229, 30.
120 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
A more pointed and express condemnation of the views of the
Tractators could not be uttered ; and here again we see, that the
very fact that the heretics pretended to Scripture authority in
their favor, formed, in Hilary’s view, a decisive reason in itself
for going to Scripture to ascertain the faith, and taking it only
upon Scripture-testimony.
And this passage shows us, that Hilary looked to Seripture —
for the whole faith; as he states also still more strongly else-
where.
“ Those things,” he says, “‘ which are not contained in the
Book of the law, we ought not even to be acquainted with.”
Again; “It is quite right, that you should be contented with
those things that are written.’’?
And as it respects its full revelation of the doctrine of the
consubstantiality, and that that doctrine was to be derived
thence, he says,—“I never heard the Nicene Creed until 1
κε was about to be sent into exile; but the Gospels and Apostles
“told me the meaning of ‘consubstantial,’ and ‘of a similar
* substance.’ 73
Errpuantvs.. (fl. a. 368.)
I proceed to the testimony of Epiphanius.
“ We,” he says, “ believe that which the truth clearly declares,
and sound reason persuades, and is agreeable to the canon of
true religion, the law and the prophets, and the patriarchs, who
“ succeeded each other from the beginning, and the teaching of
our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, who clearly teach us to
“ confess one God the Father,” &c.*
n
c
΄ι
΄ι
1 “Que libro legis non continentur, ea nee nosse debemus.” Ip. In Ps. 132.
§ 6. col. 463.
7 “Bene habet, ut iis que sunt scripta contentus sis.” Ip. De Trin. lib. iii.
§ 23. col. 822.
% “Fidem Nicenam nunquam nisi exsulaturus audivi; sed mihi homousii et
homeeusii intelligentiam Evangelia et Apostoli intimaverunt.” Ip. De Synod.
§ 91. col. 1205.
4 Ἡμεῖς γὰρ πιστεύομεν, ds πάντη ἣ ἀλήθεια ὑποφαίνει, καὶ ὃ εὔλογος λογισμὸς
ὑποτίθεται, καὶ τῷ τῆς εὐσεβείας κανόνι συμπεφώνηται, τῷ τε Νόμῳ καὶ τοῖς
Προφήταις, καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνέκαθεν Πατριάρχαις κατ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν, τῇ τε αὐτοῦ
τοῦ Σωτῆρος διδαχῇ, καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ ᾿Αποστόλων σαφῶς ἡμᾶς διδασκόντων, ἕνα
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 121
Again ; reproving the errors of the Noetian heretics, he says,
“That is agreeable to sound reason, not what these men
“imagine, but what the truth declares to us through the
“ Divine Scripture.” }
Again ; “ For an answer to every inquiry we cannot speak
“ from our own reasonings, but from consequences drawn from
“ the Scriptures.”’?
Again; speaking of his work called “ Ancoratus,” he says,—
“* But I have already discussed all those points in a large work
* concerning the faith....to which I have given the name
“ ¢ Ancoratus.’ For, as far as my poor mind was able by God’s
“ help, having collected together from the whole Scripture the true
“ doctrines of the divine revelation, 1 have clearly set forth, as an
“ anchor as it were, for those who please to make use of it, the
“holy faith of the Fathers, the faith both of the Apostles and
“ Prophets, and that which has been preached in the holy
“ Church of God from the beginning to the present time, to
“ fortify the mind, and preserve it from danger,” &c.3 When
writing respecting the faith, then, he knew no other source
from which to obtain it but Scripture, and the faith so derived
he calls the faith of the Fathers, meaning by the word Fathers,
as the context shows, the Apostles and Prophets; in which
sense he has also used the word elsewhere, as we shall show in
a future page.*
Again ; “ But we who are of the Catholic Church, having taken
ὁμολογεῖν Θεὸν πατέρα, κ. τ. A. ΕΡΙΡΗΑΝ. De Heres. her. 34. Marcos. ὃ 21.
Op. ed. Paris. 1622. vol. i. p. 257.
1 Ἔστι γὰρ τὸ εὔλογον, οὐχ ὧς οὗτοι δοξάζουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ τῆς
θείας γραφῆς ἡμῖν ὑποδείκνυσιν. Ib. ib. her. 57. Noetian. § 3. vol. i. p. 482.
5 Ἡμεῖς δὲ ἑκάστην ζητήματος εὕρεσιν οὐκ amd ἰδίων λογισμῶν δυνάμεθα
λέγειν, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν ἀκολουθίας. ΤΡ. ib. her. 65. Paul. Samos.
§ 5. i. 611.
3 °AAN ἤδη μοι πεπραγμάτευται περὶ τούτων πάντων, ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ περὶ πίστεως
λόγῳ .... ᾧ λόγῳ ἐπεθέμεθα ὄνομα ᾿Αγκυρωτόν. Καὶ γὰρ καθάπερ 6 ἡμέτερος
ἐξίσχυσε πτωχὺς νοῦς διὰ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ βοηθείας, ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς συνάγοντες τὰ
ἀληθινὰ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ διδασκαλίας, ἄγκυραν ὥσπερ τοῖς βουλομένοις τὴν ἁγίαν
πατέρων πίστιν, ᾿Αποστολικήν τε καὶ Προφητικὴν, καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο ἐν
τῇ ἁγίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ κεκηρυγμένην, σαφῶς παρεθέμεθα, εἰς τὸ κατέχεσθαι τὴν
διάνοιαν, καὶ ἀσφαλίζεσθαι, x. τ. A. Ib. ib. her. 69. Arian. § 27. i. 751, 2.
4 See under Cyrit or ALEX. in § 5 of this chapter.
122 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ our confession of faith from the divine Scriptures, have it thus,
“ that the Father,” &c.}
Again ; when about to reply to the errors of the Anomzans,
he says, But now, having arranged in order the fundamental
** points of your chapters, I shall bring against each phrase and
“ chapter refutatory arguments from the divine Scriptures, and
“ from right reason, and confutations of your logical question-
”2 How is it, then, that we hear nothing here of the
interpretation possessed by the Church, and derived from the
oral teaching of the Apostles? Had Epiphanius held the views
we are commenting upon, he must necessarily have adverted
here to that interpretation, as his authority for the sense he gave
to Scripture; but as it is, we hear of nothing but Seripture and
right reason. And so, a little further on, he accuses Aetius, the
leader of these heretics, because that, being a man by nature,
and seeking to understand things beyond nature, (viz. questions
relating to the nature of God,) he sought to know them, not by
the tenor of Scripture, but by the syllogisms of human reason-
ings ;° whence, I suppose, it follows, that Epiphanius thought
that such questions should be determined by the tenor of Scrip-
ture only, and that too by each individual.
Again; he says to the same heretics,—“ But we must yield
“ our assent with a pious mind and sincere confidence to
“ that which the Holy Spirit teaches us through the holy Scrip-
“ tures.”4 And he concludes, “I conceive that I have now,
“ according to my ability, sufficiently met his arguments, in a
“ simple style indeed, but with proofs from the divine Scriptures
“and pious reasoning.”*® But all. this while we hear nothing
“ ings.
1 Ἡμεῖς δὲ of τῆς Καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν τὴν ὁμολογίαν
τῆς πίστεως παρειληφότες, οὕτως ἔχομεν, ὅτι ὁ Πατὴρ ὁμοίου ἐστὶν ἑαυτοῦ Ὑἱοῦ
πατὴρ, κ.- τ. Χ. Ip. ib. her. 73. Semiarian. ὃ 14. i. 860.
2 ᾿Αρχὴν δὲ αὖθις τῶν ὑπὸ cod κεφαλαίων καθεξῆς κατατάξας, ἄντικρυς ἑκάστης
λέξεως καὶ κεφαλαίου ἀντιπαραθήσομαι τὰς ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν καὶ ἐξ ὀρθοῦ λο-
γισμοῦ ἀντιῤῥήσεις τε, καὶ ζητημάτων παρά σοι λογικῶν ἄνατροπάς. Ib. ib. her.
76. Anom. § 8.1. 933.
3 “AvOpwros ὧν τῇ φύσει, καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ φύσιν βουλόμενος εἰδέναι" εἰδέναι δὲ ov
κατ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν γραφῆς ἄλλ᾽ ἐκ συλλογισμῶν βροτείων διανοημάτων, K. τ. λ.
Ip. ib. her. 76. Anom. i. p. 949.
4 Ἔξ εὐσεβοῦς δὲ λογισμοῦ, καὶ δικαίας ἀσφαλείας ἐπὶ Thy Tod ἁγίου Πνεύματος
διὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν διδασκαλίαν ἀνακαμπτέον. ΤΡ. ib. her. 76. Anom. i.
985.
7. “΄“- ~ ΄- -
> Νομίζω δὲ καὶ ἱκανῶς ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὰς αὐτοῦ προτάσεις κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἰδιωτικῷ
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 23
of the Church being in possession of an Apostolical traditionary
interpretation of Scripture, though this would have cut the matter
short at once.
And as to the completeness of the record of the faith contained
in Scripture, we may observe the following passage. Writing
against the Valentinians, he says,— Their idle fables are
* destitute of confirmation, the Scripture nowhere mentioning
“ them, neither the Law of Moses, nor any prophet of those who
“ came after Moses, nor, moreover, the Saviour, nor his Evan-
“ gelists, nor the Apostles. For, if these things were true, the
“ Lord who came to lighten the world, and the Prophets before
“ him, and then also the Apostles, who reproved idolatry, and
“ every act of impiety, and feared not to write against every evil
* doctrine and opposition to the truth, would have declared such
“ things to us plainly.” }
And as to the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with
the Father, he says, even as to the word consubstantial, “ But if
“ the word were not in the Divine Scriptures, though it is, and
* plainly occurs in the Law, and in the Apostles and Prophets ;
“ for, ‘ by two or three witnesses shall every word be established;
* yet, nevertheless, it would be lawful for us to use, for the in-
“ terests of true religion, a convenient word,” &c.? And again,
still more clearly,—‘‘ The word substance does not occur in the
“ letter in the Old and New Testament, BUT THE SENSE IS TO BE
“ FOUND EVERYWHERE.” ?
λόγῳ, συστάσει δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν, Kal αὐτοῦ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς λογισμοῦ
πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπηντηκέναι. ΤΌ. ib. p. 989.
1 ῬΑσύστατα τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς μυθοποιήματα, οὔτέ που γραφῆς εἰπούσης, οὔτε τοῦ
Μωῦσέως νόμου, οὔτέ τινος Προφήτου τῶν μετὰ Μωῦσεὰ, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τοῦ Σωτῆρος,
οὔτε τῶν αὐτοῦ Εὐαγγελιστῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε μὴν τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων. Ei γὰρ ταῦτα
ἀληθινὰ ὑπῆρχεν, 6 ἐλθὼν φωτίσαι τὴν οἰκουμένην Κύριος, καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ οἱ Προ-
φῆται, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι of ἐλέγξαντες τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν, πᾶσάν τε
παράνομον πρᾶξιν, καὶ μὴ δειλιάσαντες γράφειν κατὰ πάσης παρανόμου διδασκαλίας
καὶ ἐναντιότητος, σαφῶς ἂν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἡμῖν κατήγγελλον. ΤΡ. ib. her. 31.
Valent. § 34. i. 205.
2 Ei δὲ μὴ ἦν ἡ λέξις ἐν ταῖς θείαις γρα φαῖς, ἔστι δὲ, καὶ σαφῶς ἔγκειται ἐν νόμῳ
καὶ παρὰ ᾿Αποστόλοις, καὶ τοῖς Προφήται5" ἐκ γὰρ δύο μαρτύρων, ἢ τριῶν σταθήσεται
πᾶν ῥῆμα" ὅμως ἐξὸν ἣν ἡμῖν δὲ εὐσέβειαν χρήσασθαι λέξει χρησίμῃ, K.T. A. Ib.
ib. her. 69. Arian. § 70. i. 797.
3 Τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ὄνομα, γυμνῶς μὲν ἐν παλαιᾷ καὶ καινῇ οὐ κεῖται γραφῇ, ὁ νοῦς
δὲ πανταχοῦ φέρεται. Ip. ib. her. 73. Semiarian. ὃ. 12. i. 859. ‘
124 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
But it may be said,—Does not Epiphanius himself, in other
places, tell us that there is need of “Tradition?” He does so;
and we will now consider those passages, and show that they
touch not the question of the Rule of faith. The sentiments of
the Fathers respecting the Rule of practice, will be considered
presently.
The first is as follows ;—“ But it is necessary to use Tradition
“ also. For, all things cannot be gathered from the divine Serip-
“ture. Wherefore, the holy Apostles delivered some things by
“ writing, and some by tradition.” ἢ
But what is it of which Epiphanius is here speaking? The
context will show us, for it immediately follows ;—“ Therefore
“ the holy Apostles of God delivered the precept to the holy
“ Church of God, that it was sinful for any one, after having
“ vowed virginity, to betake himself to marriage.”? He is not
speaking of any doctrine of the Christian faith, but has in view
only directions relating to ecclesiastical duties, and the rites and
ordinances of the Christian Church. In his “ Exposition of the
Catholic faith,’ at the latter end of the work from which we have
been quoting, he draws a clear line of distinction between the
two. Having laid down the principal doctrines of the Christian
faith, he says,—‘ And these are what the undivided Catholic
« Church herself holds respecting the faith . . . . both with respect
“ to the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
“and concerning the true appearance of Christ in human
“ nature, and the other parts of the faith. But with respect
“to her laws, it is now necessary for me briefly to bring for-
“ ward, in a measure, the form of her laws ; such as have been
“ more especially observed in her; and are observed, some by
“ command, and others by a voluntary reception. .... And in
“ the first place the base, and, so to speak, the foundation in
“ her, is virginity.”> And he proceeds to notice various other
1 Δεῖ δὲ καὶ παραδόσει κεχρῆσθαι: ov γὰρ πάντα ἀπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς δύναται
λαμβάνεσθαι. Διὸ τὰ μὲν ἐν γραφαῖς, τὰ δὲ ἐν παραδόσει παρέδωκαν οἱ ἅγιοι ᾿Από-
στολοι. In. ib. her. Apostol. 61. ὃ 6. i. 511.
35. Παρέδωκαν τοίνυν οἱ ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ᾿Απόστολοι τῇ ἁγίᾳ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐφάμαρτον
εἶναι τὸ, μετὰ τὸ ὁρίσαι παρθενίαν, εἰς γάμον τρέπεσθαι. In. ib.
3 Καὶ & μὲν περὶ πίστεως ἔχει αὕτη ἣ μόνη Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία... .. περί τε
Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὁμοουσιότητος, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐνσάρκου Χριστοῦ,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 135
customs, rites, and ordinances in use in the Church. And then
concludes with the remark, already quoted in a former page,'
namely, that, “as it respects the other mysteries, namely, con-
“ cerning baptism, and the more sacred mysteries, they are ob-
“ served, according as the tradition of the Gospel and the Apostles
« Ti. 6. the New Testament Scripture] directs.”
There is but one other passage, as far as I am aware, which
appears opposed to our view; and that, when taken with the con-
text, offers no real difficulty. Standing alone it reads thus,—
“ For, limits are prescribed to us, and foundations laid, both the
* structure of the faith, and the traditions of the Apostles, and
* the holy Scriptures, and the instructions delivered from one to
“ another; and through all these, the truth of God is preserved
“ safe, and let no one be deceived by new fables.”? But take
the passage with what precedes, and there is no difficulty ; for,
Epiphanius is not there discussing any point of the faith, but
merely some historical matters, namely, the genealogy of some
persons mentioned in Scripture. His words are these,—“ How
“ many others are there whose genealogies are not clearly given ;
“ for instance, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah
“the Tishbite ; even their fathers and mothers are nowhere
ἐς mentioned in all the books of Scripture ; but that no error may
“hence arise, I shall not hesitate to mention what we have
*“ received by Tradition.... [and then having given the name
“ of Daniel’s father, and the genealogy of Elijah, he proceeds].
“ But certainly with respect to the three children, Shadrach,
“* Meshach, and Abednego, we find nothing either in Apocryphal
* books, or in traditions. What shall we say, therefore? Shall
“ these persons, I mean Shadrach’s companions, delude us into
“ imagining what it behoves us not; and into holding in high
καὶ τελείας παρουσίας, καὶ ἄλλων μερῶν τῆς πίστεως" περὶ θεσμῶν δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς
ἐν ὀλίγῳ μέν μοι ἐστὶ πάλιν ἀνάγκη τοῦ παραθέσθαι τῶν αὐτῶν θεσμῶν amd μέρους
τὸ εἶδος, ὅσαπερ φύσει πεφύλακται ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ φυλάσσεται, τὰ μὲν ἐκ προστάγ-
ματος, τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀποδοχὴν προαιρέσεως ...... Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν κρηπὶς, καὶ,
ὡς εἰπεῖν, βαθμὸς ἐν αὐτῇ, ἢ παρθενία. ΤΡ. ib. Expos. fid. Cathol. ὃ 21. 1. 1103.
1 See p. 5 above.
2 “Ὅροι γὰρ ἐτέθησαν ἡμῖν, καὶ θεμέλιοι, καὶ οἰκοδομὴ τῆς πίστεως, καὶ ᾿Απο-
στόλων παραδόσεις, καὶ γραφαὶ ἅγιαι, καὶ διαδοχαὶ διδασκαλίας, καὶ ἐκ πανταχόθεν
ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ Θεοῦ ἠσφάλισται" καὶ μηδεὶς ἀπατάσθω καινοῖς μύθοις. ΤΌ. ib. her,
Melchis. 55. § 3. i. 471.
126 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ yegard and excessive admiration the reports of every conjec-
“ture? God forbid. For, limits are prescribed to us, and
“ foundations laid, both the structure of the faith and the tra-
“ditions of the Apostles, and the holy Scriptures, and the
“ instructions delivered from one to another ; and through all
“ these, the truth of God is preserved safe; and let no one be
“* deceived by new fables.”?
When we take this passage with its context, then, it opposes
not the doctrine we are endeavouring to establish; for it is
written with reference to points which form no part of the
Christian faith. The mind of Epiphanius upon our present sub-
ject, must be judged by other passages ; for no conclusion re-
specting it can be drawn from this ; and in other passages, as we
have seen, he supports the view we are defending.
The other references to Tradition, to be found in his works, so
evidently respect only points either of history or discipline, that
it is unnecessary here to consider them.
Orratvs. (fl. a. 368.)
The next author that demands our attention, is Optatus;
whose clear reference to Scripture, as the Rule of faith, and Judge
of controversies, has often been quoted on this subject.
Addressing the Donatists, he says,—“ Ye say, It is lawful: we
“ say, It is not lawful. Between your declaration of its lawful-
“ness, and ours of its unlawfulness, the minds of the people
“ are in suspense and agitation. Let neither of us be trusted in
“the matter. We are all party-men. We must inquire for
“judges. If they are Christians, neither of us can supply
“them; because truth is impeded by party-spirit. We must
“ seek a judge from without. If he is a Pagan, he cannot know
1 Πόσοι δὲ ἄλλοι οὐ γενεαλογοῦνται κατὰ τὸ φανερώτατον ; Δανιὴλ, Σεδρὰχ,
Μισὰκ, Αβδεναγὼ, Ἠλίας 6 Θεσβίτης' καὶ ἐν πάσαις ῥηταῖς βίβλοις οὐδαμοῦ ἐμ-
φέρονται τούτων οἱ πατέρες τε καὶ μητέρες" ἵνα δὲ μὴ κατὰ τοῦτο πλάνη τις γένηται,
οὐδὲν λυπήσει ἃ καὶ ἐν παραδόσεσι κατειλήφαμεν λέγειν .... φύσει δὲ τῶν
τριῶν παίδων, Σεδρὰχ, Μισὰκ, Αβδεναγὼ, οὔτε ἐν ἀποκρύφοις οὔτε ἐν παραδόσεσιν
εὕρομεν" τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; ἄρα κἀκεῖνοι, of περὶ Σεδρὰχ λέγω, φαντασιάσουσιν ἡμᾶς
λογίζεσθαι & μὴ χρὴ, καὶ ὑπερόγκως θαυμάζειν ὑπὲρ τὸ μέτρον τὰ ἑκάστης ὑπο-
θέσεως; ἀλλὰ μὴ γένοιτο: καὶ ὅροι γὰρ ἐτέθησαν ἡμῖν, κ. τ. A. (ut supra.) Ip.
ib. pp. 470, 1.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 127
“the Christian mysteries ; if a Jew, he is the enemy of Christian
“ baptism. Therefore, no verdict can be had on this matter on
“ earth ; we must seek a heavenly judge. But why do we apply
“‘ to heaven, when we have the Will here in the Gospel? For,
“in this matter, earthly things may properly be compared with
“heavenly. Like as when any man, having many sons, as long
“ as he, the father, is present himself, he himself gives his com-
“ mands to each of them; and there is as yet no need of a Will;
“ so Christ, also, as long as he was present upon earth, (although,
“‘ indeed, he is not now absent,) gave commands to his Apostles
“ for everything that was necessary, as occasion required. But,
“as an earthly father, when he perceives himself to be near
“ death, fearing Jest, after his death, the brothers should quarrel
“ with one another, and go to law, calls witnesses and transfers
« his wishes from his dying breast to tablets that will endure ;
“ and if a contention shall have arisen between the brothers, the
“ rave is not applied to, but the Will is sought ; and he who
“ rests in the grave, speaks in silence from the tablets ; [so it is
“ with us]. He, whose Will we have, is alive in heaven; there-
fore, let his direction be sought in the Gospel as his Will.” Ὁ
How completely contrary this language to that of the Ro-
manists and the Tractators! Here Optatus, a Catholic, fully
admits, that the judgment of the Catholics upon a question, had
1 “Vos dicitis, licet: nos dicimus, non licet: inter licet vestrum et non licet
nostrum, nutant et remigant anime populorum. Nemo vobis credat, nemo
nobis: omnes contentiosi homines sumus. Qurendi sunt judices: si Christiani,
de utraque parte dari non possunt; quia studiis veritas impeditur. De foris
queerendus est judex: si paganus, non potest Christiana nosse secreta: si Judzus,
inimicus est Christiani baptismatis: ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit
reperiri judicium; de ccelo querendus est judex. Sed ut quid pulsamus ad
celum, cum habeamus hic in Evangelio testamentum? Quia hoe loco recte
possunt terrena ccelestibus comparari: tale est quod quivis hominum habens
numerosos filios, quamdiu pater preesens est, ipse imperat singulis; non est adhue
necessarium testamentum: sic et Christus, quamdiu presens in terris fuit,
(quamvis nee modo desit,) pro tempore quidquid necessarium erat Apostolis im-
peravit. Sed quomodo terrenus pater, dum se in confinio senserit mortis, timens
ne post mortem suam, rupta pace, litigent fratres, adhibitis testibus, voluntatem
suam de pectore morituro transfert in tabulas diu duraturas: et si fuerit inter
fratres nata contentio, non itur ad tumulum, sed queritur testamentum: et qui
in tumulo quiescit, tacitus de tabulis loquitur. Vivus, cujus est testamentum, in
ceelo est: ergo voluntas ejus, velut in testamento sic in Evangelio requiratur.”
Optati De Schism. Donat. ady. Parmen. lib. v. ὃ 3. Op. ed. Par. 1700. p. 81.
128 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
intrinsically no more weight than that of the Donatists; and
that Scripture only could give a decisive and authoritative ver-
dict.
Basit or Casarea. (fl. a. 870.)
We now come to Basil of Cesarea, whose witness is as fol-
lows. :
“ ΤΆ is,” saith he, “a manifest defection from the faith, and
“ mark of pride, either to reject anything of what is written, or
“ to introduce anything of what is not written; our Lord Jesus
“‘ Christ saying, My sheep hear my voice....and the Apostle,
“‘ by an example taken from human things, very earnestly for-
“bidding us to add to, or take away from, anything in the
“inspired Scriptures, when he says, ‘A man’s Will, when
“ confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth to.’ [Gal. πὶ. 15].᾽}
No words, surely, can more strongly declare the exclusive
claims of Scripture, as the Rule of faith and record of revelation,
than these.
And in the context, also, the same doctrine is clearly
enforced.
“Ye also, yourselves,” he says, “well know, that it is the
“ duty of the faithful servant, whatsoever he may have been
“ entrusted with by the good master to administer to his fellow-
““ servants, to preserve these things for them safe, and neither
“‘ corrupt nor purloin them. Thus, I also am bound to place
“before you, agreeably to the will of God, for the common
“ benefit, whatsoever I have learned from the inspired Scripture.”
....“ While, therefore, I had to contend against the heresies
“ that have arisen at various times, following those who have
“‘ preceded me, I considered it convenient, out of regard to the
“‘ jmpieties vented by the devil, to stop the spread of them, by
“‘ words directly opposed to the error, and also to overturn the
“‘ blasphemies introduced ; and to use different words at different
1 Φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως καὶ ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία, ἢ ἀθετεῖν τι τῶν
γεγραμμένων, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τῶν μὴ γεγραμμένων, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰπόντος, τὰ ἐμὰ πρόβατα τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς axover...,.. καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐν
ὑποδείγματι ἀνθρωπίνῳ σφοδρότερον ἀπαγορεύοντος τὸ προσθεῖναι ἢ, ὑφελεῖν τι ἐν
ταῖς θεοπνεύστοις γραφαῖς, δι᾽ ὧν φησίν: “Ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην
οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ, ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. Basin. CHSAR. Serm. de fide, § i. Op. ed. Ben.
tom. ii. p. 224.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 129
“ times, as the necessities of those who were’ labouring under
“ error required ; and those oftentimes not words of Scripture ;
“ but, nevertheless, not alien to the orthodox meaning of Scrip-
“tnre: the Apostle often not disdaining to use heathen words
suitable to his subject.” [Where, as Archbishop Laud re-
marks, “ he makes the Scripture the Touchstone or trial” of
those unwritten words.!] “ But now I have considered it suitable,
“ both to your and my object, in the simplicity of a sound faith,
“in fulfilling the command of your love in Christ, to speak
“ what I have been taught by the inspired Scripture, sparingly
“‘ using even those names and words which are not found in the
“ very letters in the Divine Scripture, though they preserve the
*‘ meaning of Scripture.”* And soon after follows the passage
already quoted.
And in the latter part of the same treatise, ie proceeds to
say,—“ We have neither power nor leisure to collect together,
“ on the present occasion, all the things that are everywhere
“ spoken by the inspired Scripture concerning the Father, and
“ Son, and Holy Spirit. But having placed before you a few
* out of all these, we think these sufficient for your conviction,
* and for a demonstration that our views are from the Scriptures ;
“and for the satisfaction, both of yourselves, and those who
“ desire it of us.””> And he then proceeds to give the articles
1 App. Lavp’s Conference with Fisher, &c. ὃ 16. n. 26. p. 59. ed. 1686.
2 Διακόνου δὲ πιστοῦ ἴδιον ἴστε πάντως καὶ αὐτοὶ, Td, ἅπερ ἂν εἰς τοὺς συνδούλους
οἰκονομῆσαι παρὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ δεσπότου πιστευθῇ, ταῦτα διασῶσαι τούτοις ἄνοθεύ-
τως καὶ ἀκαπηλεύτως" ὥστε κἀγὼ, ἅπερ ἔμαθον ἐκ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς, ταῦτα
ὑμῖν παραθέσθαι κατὰ τὸ ἀρέσκον Θεῷ, πρὸς τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον ὀφειλέτης εἰμί.....
Ἕως μὲν οὖν ἀγωνίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἐπανισταμένας κατὰ καιρὸν αἱρέσεις ἐχρῆν,
ἑπόμενος τοῖς προειληφόσιν, ἀκόλουθον ἡγούμην τῇ διαφορᾷ τῆς ἐπισπειρομένης
ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀσεβείας, ταῖς ἂντιθέτοις φωναῖς κωλύειν, ἢ καὶ ἀνατρέπειν τὰς
ἐπαγομένας βλασφημίας, καὶ ἄλλοτε ἄλλαις, ws ἂν ἡ χρεία τῶν νοσούντων κατην-
άγκασε, καὶ ταύταις πολλάκις ἄγράφοις μὲν, ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν οὐκ ἀπεξενωμέναις τῆς
κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν εὐσεβοῦς διανοίαΞ' τοῦ ἀποστόλου πολλάκις καὶ Ἑλληνικοῖς
ῥήμασι χρήσασθαι μὴ παραιτησαμένου πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον σκοπόν. Νῦν δὲ πρὸς τὸν
κοινὸν ἡμῶν τε καὶ ὑμῶν σκοπὸν ἁρμόζον ἐλογισάμην, ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς ὑγιαινούσης
πίστεως, τὸ ἐπίταγμα τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐν Χριστῷ ἀγάπης πληρῶσαι, εἰπὼν ἃ ἐδι-
δάχθην παρὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς: φειδόμενος μὲν καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων, καὶ
ῥημάτων ἐκείνων, ἃ λέξεσι μὲν αὐταῖς οὐκ ἐμφέρεται τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, διάνοιάν γε
μὴν τὴν ἐκείνην ἐγκειμένην τῇ γραφῇ διασώζει. ΤΡ. ib. § 1. li. 223, 224.
3 Ἡμῖν δὲ πάντα μὲν τὰ πανταχοῦ ὑπὸ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς περί τε Πατρὸς
καὶ Tiod καὶ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος εἰρημένα, τὸ παρὸν ἀναλέγειν οὔτε δύναμις, οὔτε
VOL. III. K
130 THE DOCTRINE’OF THE FATHERS
of the Creed, with Scripture-proofs, showing that even these he
derived from Scripture ; and goes on to say,—‘‘ Wherefore I
“ exhort and beseech you to refrain from useless inquiries, and
“ unseemly contentions about words, and to be satisfied with what
“ ἧς said by the sacred writers and the Lord himself, and to be of
“a mind worthy your heavenly calling, and to conduct your-
“ selves worthily of the gospel of Christ,” &c.;* adding, a
little further on,—-‘“‘ Observing that admonition, ‘Beware of
“ false prophets’ [Matth. vi. 15.], and that, ‘ Withdraw your-
“selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
“ after the tradition which they received of us,’ [2 Thess. m1. 6.]
“ let us walk by the rule (or, canon,) of the sacred writers, as
“built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,
“ Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, ὅσο. [Eph,
sen. 20.)7) Σ
And he concludes by saying, that having, in what had pre-
ceded, spoken sufficiently for the occasion respecting the ortho-
dox faith, he would then proceed to give the instructions he had
promised respecting morals; and that he had drawn up his
rules, by collecting together whatever things were spoken of
with approbation or reprehension in the New Testament.*
In the Treatise on Morals which follows, we have three other
forcible testimonies of the same kind.
The subject of one of his “ Rules” is given by him thus,—
“ That it is right that every word or thing should be accredited
CRON ς ἶρις ὀλίγα δὲ ἐκ πάντων παραθέμενοι, ἀρκεῖν ἡγούμεθα καὶ ταῦτα τῇ
ὑμετέρᾳ συνειδήσει, πρός τε τὴν τοῦ ἡμετέρου ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν φρονήματος φανέρω-
σιν, καὶ τὴν ὑμῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν βουλομένων ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν πληροφορίαν. In. ib. ὃ 3.
li. 227.
1 Διόπερ παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαι, παυσαμένους τῆς περιέργου ζητήσεως καὶ ἂπρε-
ποῦς Aoyouaxlas, ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου εἰρημένοις,
ἄξια δὲ τῆς ἐπουρανίου κλήσεως φρονεῖν, καὶ ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ
πολιτεύεσθαι, x. τ. A. ID. ib. § ὅ. ii. 228, If any proof is required that τῶν
ἁγίων here means the sacred writers, see Basil. Adv. Eunom. lib. ii. § 2. init.
uoted p. 133 note 3 below, and (if supposed genuine) De Sp. S. ¢. 18. iii, 24.
q PP Ξ I
2 Τηροῦντες κἀκεῖνο Td, Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν" καὶ τὸ, Στέλλεσθαι
ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὺς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος, καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν
παρέλαβον παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, στοιχῶμεν τῷ κανόνι τῶν ἁγίων, ὡς ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ
τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, kK. τ. A. ID. ib. § 5. ii. 229.
3 "Oca τοίνυν εὑρίσκομεν κατὰ Thy Καινὴν τέως Διαθήκην σποράδην ἀπηγορευμένα
ἢ ἐγκεκριμένα, ταῦτα, κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν, εἰς ὅρους κεφαλαιώδεις πρὸς τὸ εὔληπτον
τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐσπουδάσαμεν συναγαγεῖν. ID, ib. § 6. ii. 229.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 131
“ by the testimony of the inspired Scripture, for the full assur-
“ ance of the good, and the confusion of the wicked.” 1
Again, still more decisively ;—“ 7 ts right that those hearers
“ who have learned the Scriptures, should test what ts said by their
“ teachers, and receive those things that are agreeable to the Scrip-
“ tures, and reject those that are contrary; and earnestly avoid
“ those that persevere in maintaining such doctrines.” *
And again ; “ What is the peculiar characteristic of a Chris-
“tian? Faith that worketh by love. What is the peculiar
“ characteristic of faith? A firm and unwavering assurance
“ of the truth of the inspired words, not to be shaken by any
“ yeasoning ; either such as is introduced under the plea of
“ physical necessity, or such as comes under the garb of piety.
“ What is the peculiar characteristic of a believer? To rest in
“ such an assurance, through the power of the words spoken, and
“not to dare to reject anything contained therein, or to add
“anything to them. For if, as the Apostle says, everything
“ that is not of faith is sin, and faith is by hearing, and hearing
“ by the word of God, everything that is not contained in the w.-
“ spired Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.’’?
We hence see, how entire was his conviction, that the word
of God was only to be found in the Scriptures; and that the
Scriptures were the entire and perfect Rule of faith.
Moreover, in a treatise of the same kind, but thrown into the
form of question and answer, we meet with several passages to
the same effect.
1 σοτι δεῖ πᾶν ῥῆμα ἢ πρᾶγμα πιστοῦσθαι τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς
εἰς πληροφορίαν μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἐντροπὴν δὲ τῶν πονηρῶν. ΤΡ. Moral. Regul.
xxvi. c. 1. ii. 256.
2"Ori δεῖ τῶν ἀκροατῶν τοὺς πεπαιδευμένους τὰς γραφὰς δοκιμάζειν τὰ παρὰ
τῶν διδασκάλων λεγόμενα" καὶ τὰ μὲν σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς δέχεσθαι, τὰ δὲ
you μφ
ἀλλότρια ἀποβάλλειν: καὶ τοῦς τοιούτοις διδάγμασιν ἐπιμένοντας ἀποστρέφεσθαι
σφοδρότερον. In. ib. Reg. Ixxii. ο. 1. ii. 306.
3 Ti ἴδιον Χριστιανοῦ; πίστις δ᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. Τί ἴδιον πίστεως :
ἀδιάκριτος πληροφορία τῆς ἀληθείας τῶν θεοπνεύστων ῥημάτων, οὐδενὶ λογισμῷ,
οὔτε ὑπὸ φυσικῆς ἀνάγκης εἰσαγομένῳ, οὔτε πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἐσχηματισμένῳ διασα-
λευομένη. Τί ἴδιον πιστοῦ ; τὸ ἐν τοιαύτῃ πληροφορίᾳ συνδιατίθεσθαι τῇ δυνάμει
τῶν εἰρημένων, καὶ μηδὲν τολμᾷν ἀθετεῖν ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι. Ei γὰρ πᾶν ὃ οὐκ
ἐκ πίστεως, ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν, ὥς φησιν 6 ἀπόστολος, ἡ δὲ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, 7 δὲ ἀκοὴ
διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ, πᾶν τὸ ἐκτὸς τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ὃν, ἁμαρτία
ἐστίν. Ip. ib. Reg. Ιχχχ. ο. 22, ii. 317.
K 2
1382 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
The first is as follows, — Whether it is lawful or desirable
“ for any one to allow himself even to do or say what he thinks
“ sood, without the testimony of the inspired Scriptures :”?
and in his answer he discountenances such conduct. This goes
much further than we should have any wish to contend for.
Again ;—“ Whether it is desirable for new converts immedi-
ately to learn things from the Scriptures ;” to which the answer
is, that it is “ proper and necessary that each one should learn
“ that which is useful from the inspired Scripture, both for the
“ establishment of his piety, and that he may not be accustomed
* to human traditions.” *
Again ;—“ What mind ought a prelate to have in those
things which he commands or appoints?” To which the reply
is,—“ Towards God, as a servant of Christ, and a steward of
“ the mysteries of God, fearing lest he should either speak or
“ order anything beyond the will of God, as declared in the
“ Scriptures, and be found a false witness of God, or sacri-
“ legious, in either introducing anything foreign to the doc- |
“ trine of the Lord, or omitting anything acceptable to God.”®
To these testimonies, many others may be added from other
parts of his works.
Thus, in his homily on repentance, he says,—“ We shall treat
“ of repentance from the Old and New Testament; for these
“ are the Church’s treasures.” 4
And, in a passage cited in a former part of this chapter, he
1 Εἰ ἔξεστιν ἢ συμφέρει tw) ἑαυτῷ ἐπιτρέπειν, καὶ ποιεῖν ἢ λέγειν ἃ νομίζει
καλὰ, ἄνευ τῆς μαρτυρίας τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν. ΤΡ. Reg. brev. Interrog.
1. ii. 414.
2 Εἰ συμφέρει τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις εὐθὺς τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν ἐκμανθάνειν ;
eesees Τὸ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν ἕκαστον ἐκμανθάνειν ἐκ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς
ἀκόλουθον καὶ ἀναγκαῖον εἴς τε πληροφορίαν τῆς θεοςεβείας, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ προσ-
εθισθῆναι ἀνθρωπίναις παραδόσεσιν. Ip. ib. Interrog. et resp. xev. ii. 449.
3 Ποταπὸν φρόνημα ὀφείλει ἔχειν ὁ προεστὼς ἐν ois ἐπιτάσσει, ἢ διατάσσεται.
Resp. Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς ὑπηρέτης Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἰκονόμος μυστηρίων Θεοῦ"
φοβούμενος μή τι παρὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ὁμολογούμενον ἢ
εἴπῃ, ἢ τυπώσῃ, καὶ εὑρεθῇ ψευδόμαρτυς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἢ ἱερόσυλος, ἐν τῷ ἢ ἐπεισάγειν
τι ἀλλότριον τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου διδασκαλίας, ἢ παραλεῖψαί τι τῶν ἀρεσκόντων Θεῷ.
θησαυροί. Ip. Homil. de Peenit. ᾧ 1. ii. 608.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 133
says, speaking of a thing derived from “the Fathers,” “ But it
“‘ is not sufficient for us, that it is the tradition of the Fathers.
“ For they also followed the mind of Scripture; having taken
“ their first principles from the testimonies which, a short time
“ since, we placed before you, from the Scripture.” 1
Again ;—“ It is the duty of a pious mind to fear to speak, of
“the Holy Spirit, things that are not mentioned in the Holy
“ Scriptures ; and to believe, that the knowledge and accurate
“comprehension of the Holy Spirit are reserved for us to the
“ future world.” ?
Moreover, he very expressly refers to Scripture as the Judge
of controversies, and that in the highest points of faith.
Thus, in his controversy with Eunomius, he says,—‘“ What
“ mode of investigation could be more proper, than that we
“ should compare what is said with the documents given to us
“ by the Spirit, and receive that which we find to agree with
“ them, and give no credence to that which is opposed to them,
“but avoid it as an enemy. First, therefore, let him show
ἐς this,—Which of the sacred writers have called Christ an off-
“ spring and a thing made ? What passages of the Scriptures
“ has he to prove this ἢν ὃ
And in the Epistle to Eustathius, ascribed to him, occurs a
similar and still stronger passage to the same effect ;* but as this
Epistle is with greater probability attributed to his brother, Gre-
gory of Nyssa, I shall cite it when considering the testimony of
the latter.
Further, to the passages already quoted, declarative of the
perfection of Scripture as the Rule of faith, we may add the fol-
1 Ip. De Spir. S. ο. 7. iii. 18. See p. 6 above.
2 Εὐσεβοῦς γάρ ἐστι διανοίας τὰ ἀποσιωπηθέντα ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις γραφαῖς evAa-
βεῖσθαι ἐπιφημίζειν τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, πεπεῖσθαι δὲ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ
ἀκριβῆ κατάληψιν εἰς τὸν ὕστερον ἡμῖν ἀποκεῖσθαι αἰῶνα. Ip. Ady. Eunom.
lib. ii. § 7. i. 278.
3 Tis ἂν οὖν τρόπος τῆς ἐξετάσεως δικαιότερος γένοιτο, ἢ τοῖς διδάγμασι τοῖς
παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἡμῖν δεδομένοις τὸν λόγον συγκρίνοντας, ὃ μὲν ἂν ἐκείνοις
συμφωνοῦν εὕρωμεν καταδέχεσθαι, τῷ δὲ ἐναντίως ἔχοντι ἀπιστεῖν καὶ ὡς ἐχθρὸν
ἀποφεύγειν ; Πρῶτον τοίνυν ἐκεῖνο δεικνύτω, τίνες τῶν ἁγίων γέννημα καὶ ποίημα
τὸν Χριστὸν προσειρήκασι; ποίας ἔχει φωνὰς τῶν γραφῶν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν; ID
Ady. Eunom. lib. ii. §§ 1, 2. i. 238, 9.
4 Ip. Epist. 189. § 3. iii. 277.
134 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
lowing ; which occur, however, in Treatises placed by the Bene-
dictines in their Appendix, as, in their opinion, not genuine
works of Basil. The reader may judge for himself, as we need
not their testimony.
“ Believe those things that are written. What is not written,
inquire not into.”’}
And elsewhere he tells us, that “all the commands of Christ
are written.” ἢ
Now, from these passages, it is very obvious, that if Basil has
elsewhere advocated the views of the Tractators, he has most
pointedly contradicted himself.
Let us see, however, whether he is so chargeable.
The chief passage always adduced from him against our views,
is from the latter part of the Treatise on the Holy Spirit, and
consequently from a part which has been very generally adjudged
by our best divines, and by Erasmus, if not others, among the
Romanists, to be spurious. Tothe judgment of Erasmus and of
Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Stillingfleet and Robert Cooke,
of our own divines, I have already directed the attention of the
reader.® And to these we may add many others.
Thus, Bishop Patrick says of it, that itis “a counterfeit part of
“a book of St. Basil, into which somebody hath foisted a dis-
“‘ course about Tradition, which as it belongs not at all to his
** subject, so it contradicts his sense im another place; particu-
“ larly in his book of Confession of Faith, where he saith, ‘ It is
“a manifest infidelity and arrogance, either to reject what is
““ written, or to add anything that is not written.” But admit
** those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil’s, they are
“‘ manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that
“ sense wherein he takes them. For if those things which he
“ yeckons up as Apostolical traditions have equal force with those
“things which are written in the Scripture, how comes the
“ Church of Rome to lay aside several of them? For instance,
“the words of invocation at the ostension of the bread of the
1 Τοῖς γεγραμμένοις πίστευε, τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα μὴ ζήτει. Ip. Homil, adv.
calumn. 8. Trin. 8 4. ii. 611.
3 Ei ph πάντα ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν τῆς σωτηρίας σκοπὸν avaryKaia ἦν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἔγρά-
φησαν πάσαι αἱ ἐντολαὶ. Ip. Serm. de virt. et vit. § 1. iii. 469,
3 See vol. i. pp. 201, 202.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 135
“ eucharist and the cup of blessing; the consecration of him
“ that is baptized; standing in prayer on the first day of the
“ week and all the time between Haster and Whitsuntide ? And
“ how comes it about, that others of them are left at liberty,
“such as praying towards the East, and the threefold immer-
“ sion in baptism? Both which they themselves acknowledge
“to be indifferent ; and yet are mentioned by this false St.
“ Basil (so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this) among the
‘* things which are of equal force unto godliness with those de-
“ livered in Scripture. Nay, he proceeds so far as to say in the
“ words following, that if we should reject such unwritten tra-
“ ditions, we should give a deadly wound to the gospel, or
“ rather contract it into a bare name. A saying so senseless, or
“* rather impious, that if these men had but a grain of common
“ honesty, they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world
“ by such spurious stuff, as I would willingly think they have wit
“ enough to see this 15.) Ὁ
And so Archbishop Laud, quoting Bishop Andrews as his
authority, says,— The learned take exceptions to this book of
St. Basil as corrupted. Bp. Andr. Opusc. contr. Perron. p. 9.7’?
The passage relates to the wording of the Doxology, and the
writer defends the use of the words “ with the Holy Spirit,” on
the ground of Patristical Tradition being im their favor, observ-
ing, that, “ Of the doctrines and instructions preserved in the
“ Church, some we have from the teaching of Scripture, and
“ others we have received delivered down to us secretly from the
“ Tradition of the Apostles; both of which have the like force
“ towards piety; and no one will contradict these things, no
“ one at least who has any experience of the laws of the Church ;
“ for if we should attempt to repudiate the unwritten customs
“ as not having avy great weight, we should unwittingly injure
“the Gospel in the very principal points, or rather reduce the
“ Gospel to a mere name.”? And he then instances the sign of
1 Be. Parrice’s Answer to Touchstone of Reformed Gospel, pp. 33—5.
2 Laun’s Conference with Fisher, ὃ 16. n. 26. p. 59. ed. 1686.
3 τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πεφυλαγμένων δογμάτων Kal κηρυγμάτων, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῆς
ἐγγράφου διδασκαλίας ἔχομεν, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδο-
θέντα ἡμῖν ἐν μυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάμεθα' ἅπερ ἀμφότερα τὴν αὐτὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει πρὸς
τὴν εὐσέβειαν: καὶ τούτοις οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ, οὐκοῦν ὅστις γε κατὰ μικρὸν γοῦν
136 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
the cross in baptism, and other points ofalike kmd. A similar
passage occurs shortly after.!
That the author of these passages should be the same as the
one who wrote what we have quoted above, it is hardly possible
to conceive. Indeed, they are directly opposed to a passage
(already quoted) occurring in the former part of the same treatise,
where, speaking of a similar phrase with relation to the Son,
Basil says, that though it was from the Fathers, it was not
enough that it was the tradition of the Fathers, but that they had
derived it from the Scriptures.”
That this work has been, to say the least, interpolated and
corrupted, must, I think, be clear to every impartial reader.
Moreover, this author, whoever he is, when he descends to
particulars, seems only to apply his observations to customs and
matters of form and discipline, not to points of faith, as if
Tradition was any part of the Rule of faith. And in such
matters it might perhaps be said, that there are some unwritten
customs that have the same force towards piety as some customs
commanded in Scripture. The force of the passage, according
to Bishop Stillingfleet, is this ;—“ It was objected, that the form
“Ὁ, Basil used, was not found in Scripture; he answers, that
“ the equivalent is there found, and that there were some things
“ yeceived by Tradition which had the same force towards piety.
“ And if we take away all unwritten customs, we shall do wrong
“ to the gospel, and leave a bare name to the public preaching.
“ And from thence he insists on some traditionary rites, as the
“ sion of the cross, praying towards the East, &c. His business
“is, to show that to the greater solemnity of Christian worship
“‘ several customs were observed in the Church, which are not
“ to be found in Scripture. And if other antient customs were
“ received which are not commanded in Seripture, he sees no
“ reason that they should find such fault with this.” ὃ
θεσμῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πεπείραται. Ei γὰρ ἐπιχειρήσαιμεν τὰ ἄγραφα τῶν ἐθῶν
ὡς μὴ μεγάλην ἔχοντα τὴν δύναμιν παραιτεῖσθαι, λάθοιμεν ἂν εἰς αὐτὰ τὰ καίρια
ζημιοῦντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον" μᾶλλον δὲ εἰς ὄνομα ψιλὸν περιϊστῶντες τὸ κήρυγμα.
De Spir. S. ¢. 27. iii. 54.
1 ῬΑποστολικὺν οἶμαι, Kal τὸ ταῖς ἀγράφοις παραδόσεσι παραμένειν. Ib. c. 29.
iii. 60.
2 De Sp. S. ο. 7. iii. 13. See p. 6 above.
3 SYILLINGFLEET’s Council of Trent examined, p. 25. See also his Grounds of
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 137
The passage, therefore, seems at any rate intended only to
apply to matters of form and ecclesiastical rites.
And what is more, the view which the author of it takes is
essentially different from that of the Romanists and the Tracta-
tors, for he speaks of his “traditions” as secretly and silently
conveyed down under the veil of mystery, and not published
abroad in the writings of the Fathers.!
Let us proceed, however, to some passages that are quoted
against our view from the genuine works of Basil, and we shall
find, that not one of them advocates more than what we readily
admit, namely, that the works of the Fathers are to be referred
to as affording a confirmatory argument for the orthodox faith.
For instance, the first passage merely amounts to a general
declaration of regard for the statements of the Fathers, more
particularly when compared with those of the heretic Eunomius,
—in which we most fully agree. The passage with its context
stands thus;—Eunomius having spoken slightingly of the
Fathers, and of the sentiments of the great body of Christians
either then living or of any former age, Basil replies,—‘* What
“do you say? are we not to attribute the greater weight to
“ those who have preceded us? Are we not to hold in respect
“the multitude both of the Christians of the present time and
“ of those who have lived since the Gospel was first preached ?
“ Are we not to take into account the dignity of those who have
“been distinguished by spiritual gifts of all kinds, in opposi-
“tion and hostility to all of whom you have now introduced
“ this wicked path of impiety? But having altogether closed
‘‘the eyes of our mind and driven out of our memory the
“ recollection of every holy man, are we each of us to come and
“ subject his mind in a passive state, cleared of all former im-
“ pressions, to your vagaries and sophisms? You would be
“ possessed of great power indeed, if it shall fall to your lot to
Protestant religion, pp. 242—4, ed. 1665, and ArcuBisHop Lavp’s Conference
with Fisher, § 16. n. 26. p. 59. ed. 1686.
1 ᾿Απὸ τῆς σιωπωμένης καὶ μυστικῆς παραδόσεως ...... ἐκ τῆς ἀδημοσιεύτου
ταύτης καὶ ἀποῤῥήτου διδασκαλίας, ἣν ἐν ἀπολυπραγμονήτῳ καὶ ἀπεριεργάστῳ
σιγῇ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐφύλαξαν, καλῶς ἐκεῖνο δεδιδαγμένοι, τῶν μυστηρίων τὸ
σεμνὸν σιωπῇ διασώζεσθαι; ἃ γὰρ οὐδὲ ἐποπτεύειν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἀμυήτοις, τουτων
πῶς ἂν ἦν εἰκὸς τὴν διδασκαλίαν ἐκϑριαμβεύειν ἐν γράμμασιν; De Sp. 5.
c. 27. iii. 55.
138 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“have the command of those things which the devil himself
“ with his various artifices has not obtained; if, that is, in
“ obedience to you, we should judge the tradition that has been
“held by so many holy men [he was too wise a man to talk of
“ every body always everywhere] in all past time less valuable
“than your impious conceits.””! In all this, I need not say,
there is not one word from which we dissent.
Again, Basil says in his Homily against the Sabellians and
others,—“ But let the tradition deter you from separating the
“ Holy Spirit from the Father and Son. The Lord hath thus
“taught, Apostles have proclaimed this doctrine, Fathers have
“kept it, martyrs have confirmed it. Be satisfied to speak as
“ you have been taught.” But this passage confirms our view ;
for, by consulting the preceding context, we find that “the tra-
dition” referred to is “ the tradition of baptism,’ ὅ that is, our
Lord’s tradition delivered Matt. xxviii. 19; and, in fact, the
grounds upon which the matter is placed, are precisely those for
which we contend, namely, the teaching of our Lord and his
Apostles as the foundation, and that of Fathers and martyrs
as, in their place, confirmatory of the correctness of our view of
a doctrine. And, therefore, we agree fully with the admonition
of Basil in the context,—“I entreat you, not to seek in every
“ way to hear from me that which is agreeable to you, but that
1 τί λέγεις ; μὴ νείμωμεν τὸ πλέον τοῖς προλαβοῦσι; μὴ αἰδεσθῶμεν τὸ πλῆθος
τῶν τε νῦν ὄντων Χριστιανῶν, καὶ τῶν ὅσοι γεγόνασιν ἀφ᾽ οὗ κατηγγέλη τὸ εὐαγ-
γέλιον ; μὴ λογισώμεθα τὸ ἀξίωμα τῶν ἐν παντοίοις χαρίσμασι διαφανέντων πνεὺ-
ματικοῖς, οἷς ἅπασιν ἐχθρὰν καὶ πολεμίαν τὴν πονηρὰν ὁδὸν ταύτην τῆς ἀσεβείας
ἐκαινοτόμησας ; ἄλλά μύσαντες ἁπαξαπλῶς τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ παντὸς
ἁγίου μνήμην τῆς διανοίας ὑπερορίσαντες, σχολάζουσαν καὶ σεσαρωμένην τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ καρδίαν ἕκαστος ταῖς παραγωγαῖς σου καὶ τοῖς σοφίσμασι φέροντες ὑποθῶ-
μεν ; μεγάλης μέντ᾽ ἂν εἴης τῆς δυναστείας ἐπειλημμένος, εἴπερ ὧν ταῖς ποικίλαις
ἑαυτοῦ μεθοδείαις 5 διάβολος οὐκ ἐπέτυχε, τούτων σοὶ τυχεῖν ἐξ. ἐπιτάγματος πε-
ριέσται: ἐάν περ πεισθέντες σοι, τὴν ἐν παντὶ τῷ παρελθόντι χρόνῳ ὑπὸ τοσούτων
ἁγίων κεκρατηκυῖαν παράδοσιν ἀτιμοτέραν κρίνωμεν τῆς δυσσεβοῦς ὑμῶν ἐπινοίας.
Basin. Cms. Adv. Eunom. lib. i. ὃ 3. i. 210, 11.
2 ᾿Αλλὰ μὴ χωρίσῃς Πατρὸς καὶ Tiod τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, δυσωπείτω σε ἣ παρά-
docis. ὋὉ Κύριος οὕτως ἐδίδαξεν, ἀπόστολοι ἐκήρυξαν, πατέρες διετήρησαν, μάρ-
τυρες ἐβεβαίωσαν: ἀρκέσθητι λέγειν ὡς ἐδιδάχθης. Iv. Hom. contra Sabell. Arium
et Anom. § 6. ii. 194.
3. Ἢ παράδοσις τοῦ βαπτίσματος. Ib. The passage is very similar to one
of Athanasius quoted above, vol. i. pp. 118, 119.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 139
‘‘ which is well pleasing to the Lord, and accordant with the
“ Scriptures, and not at variance with the Fathers.” 1
Thus, also, he says elsewhere, after having laid down what
he considered to be the orthodox faith,—“ These, brethren, are
“the mysteries of the Church, these are the traditions of the
“ Fathers ; 2 where he states what he justly considered as a strin-
gent argument for the reception of what he had been delivering,
but not as any part of the Rule of faith, for he immediately adds,
“‘ We adjure every man who fears the Lord and expects the
“ judgment of God, not to be carried away by divers doctrines.
“ Tf any one teaches otherwise and adheres not to the wholesome
“ words of the faith, but, rejecting the oracles of the Spirit, holds
“ his own teaching to be of more authority than the Evangelical
“ documents, avoid such a man ;”? where we plainly see, what
was his sole Rule of faith.
Again ; he says,— But as to the faith, we neither receive
“ that which is written by others, junior to us, nor dare our-
“ selves to deliver the offspring of our own conceits, that we
“ may not make the words of the orthodox faith dependent upon
“ men; but what we have been taught by the holy Fathers, that
“we deliver to those who question us.”* But “the holy
Fathers” here mentioned are only “ the Nicene Fathers,” for it
follows,— Therefore the Creed written by the holy Fathers,
“ those, I mean, that met at Niczea, has been received in our
“‘ Church from the times of our Fathers,”° and he then pro-
ceeds to deliver the Nicene Creed.
1 «μᾶς δὲ παρακαλοῦμεν, μὴ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ζητεῖν τὸ ὑμῖν ἀρέσκον παρ᾽
ἡμῶν ἀκοῦσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ τῷ Κυρίῳ εὐάρεστόν ἐστι, καὶ σύμφωνον ταῖς γραφαῖς, καὶ μὴ
μαχόμενον τοῖς πατράσιν. Ib. § 4. ii. 193.
2 Ταῦτά ἐστιν, ἀδελφοὶ, Ta τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυστήρια, αὗται τῶν πατέρων at
παραδόσεις. Ep. ad Sozopolit. ep. 261. ὃ 3. iii. 403.
3 Διαμαρτυρόμεθα παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ φοβουμένῳ τὸν Κύριον, καὶ κρίσιν Θεοῦ ava-
μένοντι, διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις μὴ παραφέρεσθαι. Et τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ, καὶ μὴ προσ-
έρχεται ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ παρωθούμενος τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος
λόγια, τὴν οἰκείαν διδασκαλίαν κυριωτέραν ποιεῖται τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν διδαγμάτων,
φυλάσσεσθε τὸν τοιοῦτον. Ib.
4 πίστιν δὲ ἡμεῖς, οὔτε παρ᾽ ἄλλων γραφομένην ἡμῖν νεωτέραν [ἢ νεωτέρων]
παραδεχόμεθα, οὔτε αὐτοὶ τὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας διανοίας γεννήματα παραδιδόναι τολ-
μῶμεν, ἵνα μὴ ἀνθρώπινα ποιήσωμεν τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ῥήματα" GAN ἅπερ παρὰ τῶν
ἁγίων πατέρων δεδιδάγμεθα, ταῦτα τοῖς ἐρωτῶσιν ἡμᾶς διαγγέλλομεν. Ἐρἰδῦ.
ad eccles, Antioch. ep. 140. § 2. iii. 233.
5 Ἔστι τοίνυν ἐκ πατέρων ἐμπολιτευομένη TH ἑκκλησίᾳ ἡμῶν 7 γραφεῖσα παρὰ
τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων πίστις, τῶν κατὰ τὴν Νίκαιαν συνελθόντων. Ib,
140 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
And this assembly that met at Nicza, or Nice, he justly con-
siders to have strong claims upon our regard, though not to de-
mand our faith; for, having spoken of the Creed promulgated
by the Fathers that met at Niczea, and noticed the fact that some
persons did not receive the word “ consubstantial,’” which they
had introduced into it, he says,—‘‘ Whom any one might per-
“ haps justly blame, and yet again might judge them excusable.
“ For, on the one hand, not to follow the Fathers, and esteem
“ their word of more authority than their own notions, 15 worthy
“ of blame as a very arrogant thing; while again, on the other
“ hand, to be suspicious of a word blamed by others, this seems
“ pretty well to clear them from blame. For, in truth, those
“ that met in the matter of Paul of Samosata, found fault with
“ the phrase as not sounding correct.’ +
In all these passages, then, (which, if not all, are at least the
strongest that can be brought from the writings of Basil, that
have any show of supporting the views of our opponents,) we
find nothing which, when compared with his clear statements as
to the claims of Holy Scripture, given above, presents any diffi-
culty as to his views on the subject.
Grecory oF Nyssa. (fl. a. 370.)
From Basil let us pass to his brother, Gregory of Nyssa.
First ; Is Scripture solely and exclusively the authoritative
Rule of faith? The following passages will show us bis opimion
on this point.
In his treatise, ‘‘ On the soul and the resurrection,” written
in the form of a dialogue between himself and his celebrated
sister Macrina, he says,—
“ We have not this power, the power I mean of saying what
“‘ we please, inasmuch as we use the holy Scripture as our rule
1 Obs καὶ μέμψαιτο ἄν τις δικαίως, καὶ πάλιν μέντοι συγγνώμης αὐτούς ἀξιώ-
σειεν. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πατράσι μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἐκείνων φωνὴν κυριωτέραν
τίθεσθαι τῆς ἑαυτῶν γνώμης, ἐγκλήματος ἄξιον, ὡς αὐθαδείας γέμον. Td δὲ πάλιν
ip’ ἑτέρων διαβληθεῖσαν αὐτὴν ὕποπτον ἔχειν, τοῦτό πως δοκεῖ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος
αὐτοὺς μετρίως ἐλευθεροῦν: καὶ γὰρ τῷ ὄντι, οἱ ἐπὶ Παύλῳ τῷ Σαμοσατεῖ συνελ-
θόντες, διέβαλον τὴν λέξιν ὡς οὐκ εὔηχον. Ep. ad Canonicas. ep. 52. ὃ 1.
iii. 145.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 1.11
“ for every doctrine and our law ; and being under the necessity of
referring to this, we receive that only whatsoever may be agree-
“ able to the scope of what is there written.” 1
And a little further on the dialogue runs thus ;—“I think it
ἐς hehoves us to inquire, with respect to what has been said,
“ whether that which divine inspiration has taught us, is conso-
“nant with these things. But, said she, [1. 6. Macrina] who
“ could possibly deny, but that we must consider that alone to
“ be truth, for which there is the seal of Scriptural testimony 2” *
Again; writing against Eunomius, he says,—‘‘ But let us
“ proceed to that which follows of his discourse, after we have
“ added a few words directed to the confirmation of our doctrine.
« For, since the inspired testimony is the sure criterion of truth
“in the case of EveRY doctrine, I think it well to prove the
“ truth of what I have said by citing the divine oracles.” *
And so, in other passages, when challenging Eunomius for a
proof of his doctrines, he speaks so as clearly to show, that Scrip-
ture was the only authority by which doctrines were to be
established.
Thus, speaking of a doctrine advanced by Eunomius, he says,
—< Tf, indeed, these are the doctrines of any of the heathen
“ philosophers, let not the Gospels, or the rest of the revela-
“ tions of the inspired Scripture, be at all troubled about the
“ matter ; for what communion is there between the Christian
“ doctrine and the wisdom that has become folly ? [1 Cor. 1. 22.]
“ But if they depend upon the Scriptures, [as he manifestly
“ thinks they ought to do, to the exclusion of all other autho-
1 Ἡμεῖς δὲ τῆς εξουσίας ἄμοιροι ταύτης ἐσμὲν τῆς λέγειν φημὶ ἅπερ βουλόμεθα,
κανόνι παντὸς δόγματος καὶ νόμῳ κεχρημένοι τῇ ἁγίᾳ γραφῇ" ἀναγκαίως πρὸς
ταύτην βλέποντες τοῦτο δεχόμεθα μόνον" ὅτιπερ ἂν ἢ συμφωνοῦν τῷ τῶν γεγραμ-
μένων σκοπῷ. GREGOR. ΝΎΞΒ, De anim. et resurrect. Op. ed. Paris. 1615—18.
tom. ii. pp. 632, 3. (ed. 1638. tom. iii. pp. 200, 201.)
2 Ζητεῖν οἶμαι δεῖν ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, εἰ ἢ θεόπνευστος διδασκαλία τούτοις
συμφέρεται. “H δὲ, Κἄν τις ἂν ἀντείποι, φησὶ, μὴ οὐχὶ ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ τὴν ἀλή-
θειαν τιθέσθω; ᾧ σφραγὶς ἐπέστι τῆς γραφικῆς μαρτυρίας. ΤΌ. 10. tom. ii. p. 639.
(tom. iii. p. 207. ed. 1638.)
3 Ἡμεῖς δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἐφεξῆς τοῦ λόγου προέλθωμεν μικρῶν ἔτι πρὸς σύστασιν τοῦ
ἡμετέρου δόγματος προσδιορθηθέντων [ὃ προσδιορθωθέντων 1" ἐπειδὴ γὰρ κριτήριον
ἀσφαλὲς τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπὶ παντὸς δόγματος ἣ θεόπνευστός ἐστι μαρτυρία, καλῶς
ἔχειν ἡγοῦμαι τῇ παραθέσει τῶν θείων, καὶ τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον πιστῶσασθαι,
Ip. Contr. Eunom. lib. i. Appendix, p. 82. (tom. ii. p. 346. ed. 1638.)
142 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ rities,] let him give an instance of such language from the
“ holy writers, and we will be silent.” 1
And, after charging him with saying, that the Word or Son
of God is “ not uncreated,” (μὴ ἄκτιστον) he adds,—‘‘ Let him
“ say, whence he derives the boldness to affirm this: from what
* divinely-inspired testimony ? What Evangelist, what Apostle
“uttered such a saying? What prophet, or lawgiver, or pa-
“ triarch, or any one else of those who were divinely inspired by
“the Holy Spirit, whose words are committed to writing,” taught
* such a phrase? We have learnt in the tradition of the faith
“ by the Truth to believe in the Father, and Son, and Holy
“ Spirit. Ought we to believe that he is created? How is it
“ that the Truth when delivering to us the mystery has enjoined
“ faith in the Son and not in acreature? And how is it that
“the divinely-inspired Apostle, while he worships Christ, de-
“ clares that those who extend their worship beyond the Creator
“ to the creature are idolaters ?” ®
1 El μὲν οὖν τινὶ τῶν ἔξω σοφῶν ταῦτα δοκεῖ, μηδὲν ἐνοχλείσθω τὰ εὐαγγέλια,
μηδὲ ἣ λοιπὴ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς διδασκαλία. Tis γὰρ κοινωνία τῷ Χριστιανῷ
λόγῳ πρὸς τὴν μωρανθεῖσαν σοφίαν ; εἰ δὲ τοῖς γραφικοῖς ἐπερείδεται, δειξάτω
τοιαύτην ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων φωνὴν, καὶ ἡμεῖς σιωπήσομεν. Ip. Contr. Eunom.
Orat. 9. tom. ii. p. 254. (Orat. vel lib. 10. tom. ii. p. 682. ed. 1638.)
2 In the somewhat celebrated work among the Romanists, compiled by the
Rev. Messrs. Berington and Kirk, entitled “The faith of Catholics confirmed by
Scripture, and attested by the Fathers,” &c., intended to show by a large collec-
tion of Patristical testimonies that the witness of the Fathers is altogether in
favor of the Romish Creed, the unfortunate mistake has been made of adducing
this very passage in support of the Romish doctrine of Tradition, the word ἀνά-
parrot, “committed to writing, ” being interpreted, in just the opposite sense
to its meaning, “ Unwritten.” (See 3d. ed. 1846. vol. i. p. 421.) The work is one
which may look very formidable to an uninstructed reader, but to one at all
versed in the writings of the Fathers and acquainted with the nature of the con-
troversies in question, can hardly, I conceive, give much trouble. But it would
be out of place to notice it further here.
5. Πόθεν ἔχει Thy παῤῥησίαν, εἰπάτω: ἐκ ποίας θεοπνεύστου φωνῆς; Tis εὐαγ-
γελιστὴς, ποῖος ἀπόστολος τὴν τοιαύτην ἀφῆκε φωνήν ; τίς προφήτης, ἢ νομοθέτης,
ἢ πατριάρχης, ἢ ἄλλος τίς τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ‘Aylov Πνεύματος θεοφορουμένων, ὧν
ἀνάγραπτοι εἰσὶν af φωναὶ, τῆς τοιαύτης ῥήσεως κατηγήσατο; Πατέρα καὶ Tidy καὶ
Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἐν τῇ παραδόσει τῆς πίστεως παρὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐμάθομεν. Ἢ
κτιστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πιστεύειν ἐχρῆν ; πῶς παραδιδοῦσα ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον ἣ ἀλήθεια
τὴν εἰς τὸν Ὑἱὸν πίστιν καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸ κτῖσμα ἐνομοθέτησε; πῶς δὲ προσκυνῶν τὸν
Χριστὸν ὃ θεῖος ἀπόστολος, τοὺς τῇ κτίσει λατρεύοντας παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα,
εἰδωλολατρεῖν διορίζεται ; Lp. Contr. Eunom. Orat. 1. tom. ii. p. 33. (Orat. vel lib.
2. tom. ii. p. 461. ed. 1638.) 1 have placed a full stop after ἐμάθομεν, instead of
a comma, as the sense evidently requires. Both the punctuation and the Latin
yersion of these editions are often very incorrect.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 143
Here Scripture alone is referred to as the source from which
Eunomius could obtain any authority for his doctrme. And we
may observe, that the phrase “the tradition of the faith,” so
often misunderstood as meaning church-tradition, is clearly used
for the tradition of Scripture on the subject.
Another passage precisely similar occurs in another part of
the same work, which we have given below.!
And to the Holy Scripture he distinctly appeals, as the Judge
of controversies among Christians. .
In his Treatise respecting the Trinity, he says of certain
heretics, —“‘ They charge us with introducing novelties, forming
“ their accusation against us thus. When we confess three
““ hypostases, they accuse us of saying, that there is one good-
“ ness, one power, and one Godhead. And they affirm this not
“ without reason. For such is our language. But they blame
“us for this, and object against us, that the faith, as customably
“ received among them, does not contain this, and the Scripture
“5 does not agree with it. What, then, do we say to this? We
“ do not think it just, that the custom that prevails among them,
* should be made the law and rule of right doctrine. For, if
“ the plea of custom is valid asa proof of the correctness of what
“ is said, it will be lawful for us also, without doubt, to brmg
“ forward in opposition the custom that prevails among us.
*« But if they repudiate this, neither doubtless can we be called
“ upon to follow them. Therefore let the inspired Scripture be
“ the arbiter of the controversy between us, and the suffrage of the
“ truth will, beyond doubt, fall to the lot of those whose doctrines
shall be found agreeable to the divine words.” * In these words,
1 Ποίαν εὑρὼν ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς σκιὰν τοῦ τοιούτου νοήματος, ταῦτα τολμᾶ; ἐκ
ποίας ἀρχῆς δι ἀκολούθου πρὸς τὸ τοιοῦτο πέρας προήγαγε τὴν ἀσέβειαν ; τίς τῶν
εὐαγγελιστῶν φησί; τίς ἀπόστολος ; Tis προφήτης ; πᾶν μὲν οὖν τὸ ἐναντίον πᾶσα
γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, ἣ διὰ τὴς ἐπιπνοίας τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀναγραφεῖσα, μαρτυρεῖ τῷ
Πνεύματι τὴν θεότητα. In. Contr. Eunom. Orat. 1. tom. ii. p. 59. (Orat. vel lib.
2. tom. ii. ed. 1638.)
2 ᾿Αλλὰ καινοτομίαν ἡμῖν προφέρουσιν, οὑτωσὶ τὸ ἔγκλημα καθ᾽ ἡμῶν συντι-
θέντες" τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογούντων, μίαν ἀγαθότητα, μίαν δύναμιν, καὶ μίαν
θεότητα λέγειν ἡμᾶς αἰτιῶνται. Καὶ οὐκ ἔξω τοῦτο τῆς ἀληθέιας φασίν" λέγομεν
γὰρ, ἀλλ᾽ [read, φασίν: λέγομεν γὰρ. ᾿Αλλ᾽] ἐγκαλοῦντες τοῦτο προφέρουσιν,
ὅτι ἣ συνήθεια αὐτῶν τοῦτο οὐκ ἔχει, καὶ ἣ γραφὴ οὐ συντίθεται. Τί οὖν καὶ πρὸς
144. THE DOCTRINE ‘OF THE FATHERS
then, the Holy Scripture is clearly and distinctly put forward in
that character to which Dr. Pusey and his party tell us it has no
claim, and for a purpose which the same persons tell us it cannot
fulfil, namely, as the proper arbiter of controversies among
Christians. The appeal which those heretics made to the
Scripture, saying that the orthodox doctrine was not agreeable
to Scripture, did not for a moment prevent Gregory’s appeal to
it as the arbiter of the controversy.
Nay more, he even speaks of it in one passage as our sole
authoritative rule in points of ecclesiastical duty. In his treatise,
« Respecting those who visit Jerusalem,” he says,—“ I assert
“ that it is proper for those who have once dedicated themselves
“to a heavenly course of life, to refer in everything to the words
“ of the Gospel; and, as men shaping their work by a rule,
“ἐ reduce the crooked things in their hands to straightness by
“ the straight line of the rule, so I think it proper, that those
“ persons applying to these things a certain right and immu-
“ table rule as it were, I mean the course of life laid down in the
““ Gospel, should shape their course to God by it. Since, there-
“ fore, there are some of those who have chosen for themselves
“ a solitary life in retirement, by whom it has been determined
“to be a part of religion to see those places in Jerusalem in
“which are seen the evidences of our Lord’s sojourn in the
* flesh, it would be well to look to the rule ; and if the tendency
* of the precepts there given is such as to exhort us to it, to
* yerform the act as a command of the Lord ; but ifit is not con-
* tained in the commands of the Lord, I know not what precept
“ there is, that a man becoming a law of what is good to himself,
* should desire to do something not commanded.” ἢ
τοῦτο ἡμεῖς ; οὐ νομίζομεν δίκαιον εἶναι Thy παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπικρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν
νόμον καὶ κανόνα τοῦ ὀρθοῦ ποιεῖσθαι λόγου: Ei γὰρ ἰσχυρόν ἐστι εἰς ὀρθότητα
λόγου ἡ συνήθεια, ἐξέσται καὶ ἡμῖν πάντως ἀντιπροβάλλεσθαι τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐπι-
κρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν" εἰ δὲ παραγράφονται ταύτην ἐκεῖνοι, οὐδὲ ἡμῖν πάντως ἄκο-
λουθητέον ἐκείνοις. Οὐκοῦν ἣ θεόπνευστος ἡμῖν διαιτησάτω γραφή, καὶ παρ᾽ οἷς
ἂν εὑρεθῇ τὰ δόγματα συνωδὰ τοῖς θείοις λόγοις, ἐπὶ τούτοις ἥξει πάντως τῆς GAn-
θείας ἣ ψῆφος. Ip. De 8S. Trin. ep. ad Eustath. tom. ii. pp. 439, 40. (tom.
iii. p. 8. ed. 1638.) This Letter is also ascribed to Basil, and is given among his
Letters (ep. 189. ed. Ben.), but probably belongs to Gregory Nyssen.
1 ᾿Εγὼ τοὺς ἅπαξ ἀνατεθεικότας ἑαυτοὺς TH ὑψηλῇ πολιτείᾳ, καλῶς ἔχειν φημὶ
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 145
Here, then, the Scripture is proposed to us as our Rule,
even in a more extended sense than that for which we are now
contending.
In several of these passages, also, we must observe, that he
places it before us as a full and complete Rule in respect of
extent, that is, as embracing not only all the necessary, but all
the doctrines of the Christian faith.
There is, however, one passage in his writings, (I am not at
present aware of more than one,) which requires a remark ; but
which, especially when taken in connexion with the passages
we have just quoted, as of course it must in fairness be taken,
admits of an easy and satisfactory explanation.
The passage occurs in one of his Orations against Eunomius,
and is as follows ;—“ Let no one murmur against me, and say,
“ that that also which is confessed by us, needs to be certified
“ by a demonstration. For it is sufficient as a proof of our
“ doctrine, that we have the Tradition that has come to us from
* our fathers transmitted as a sort of inheritance by succession
*< from the Apostles through the succeeding saints. But they
“who have changed the doctrines [of the Gospel] to this new
“ faith, would indeed need much aid from argumentative reasonings,
“ if they should be anxious to bring over to their opinion not
“merely those who are easily excited and fickle-minded, but
“ also those of a steady mind and fixed views. But while their
“ doctrine is brought forward destitute of foundation and proof,
“ who would be so foolish and brutish, as to make the doctrine
“of the Evangelists and Apostles, and those who succes-
πρὸς Tas τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διὰ παντὸς ἀποβλέπειν φωνάς" καὶ ὥσπερ of τῷ κανόνι Td
ὑποκείμενον ἀπευθύνοντες, κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κανόνος εὐθεῖαν τὰ σκολιὰ τὰ ἐν
χερσὶν εἰς εὐθύτητα μεταβάλλουσιν, οὕτως προσήκειν ἡγοῦμαι oiovel τινα κανόνα
ὀρθὸν καὶ ἀδιάστροφον, τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν λέγω δὴ πολιτείαν, τούτοις ἐπιβάλλοντας,
κατ᾽ ἐκείνην πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπευθύνεσθαι. ᾿Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν εἰσί τινες τῶν τὸν μονήρη
καὶ ἰδιάζοντα βίον ἐπανῃρημένων, οἷς ἐν μέρει εὐσεβείας νενόμισται τὸ τοὺς ἐν
Ἱεροσολύμοις τόπους ἰδεῖν, ἐν οἷς τὰ σύμβολα τῆς διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ ἹΚυρίου
ὁρᾶται, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι πρὸς τὸν κακόνα βλέπειν" καὶ εἰ ταῦτα βούλεται ἣ παρὰ
τῶν ἐντολῶν χειραγωγία, ποιεῖν τὸ ἔργον, ὡς πρόσταγμα Κυρίου: εἰ δὲ ἔξω ἐστὶ
τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ Δεσπότου, ovK olda τί ἐστι τὸ διατεταγμένον τι θέλειν ποιεῖν
αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ τοῦ καλοῦ νόμον γινόμενον. Ip. Orat. de iis qui adeunt Hierosol.
tom. ii. p. 1084. (tom. iii. pp. 651, 2. ed. 1638.)
VOL. 111. L
146 THE DOCTRINE ‘OF THE FATHERS
“sively shone in the Churches, of less weight than his idle
“ prattle, which is destitute of atu evidence in its favor ?” *
Now, to understand this passage, we must observe, that his
opponents had been resting their doctrines upon human reason-
ings and logical arguments, and are charged by Gregory with
having taken, as the foundation of their statements, positions
the truth of which they had not even thus demonstrated” Re-
plying, then, by anticipation, toa similar charge against himself,
he says, in the words we have quoted above, Let no one say,
that what I have advanced needs such a demonstration, because
my doctrine is that of the Evangelists and Apostles, and there-
fore needs no such demonstration, as being founded upon the
statements of persons inspired. If even we suppose, therefore,
that the Tradition to which he alludes was something indepen-
dent of the Scriptures, this will not make the passage adverse to
our views ; for, the only point on which he was insisting was, in
reply to the objection that his doctrine needed logical demonstra-
tion, that, being “ the doctrine of the Evangelists and Apostles,”
it needed no such proof of itstruth. But if it had further been
questioned, whether his doctrine really was “ the doctrine of the
Evangelists and Apostles,” the passages we have quoted from
him above clearly show, to what he would have appealed as
the Judge, namely, the testimony of Scripture.. And his use of
the words, “ the Evangelists and Apostles,” the usual phrase with
the Fathers for the New Testament, strongly confirms this view.
And I much doubt, whether he was here speaking of Ecclesi-
astical Tradition, and am inclined to think, from his own phra-
1 Kai μοι μηδεὶς ὑποκρουέτω καὶ τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν διομολογούμενον διὰ κατασκευῆς
κυρωθῆναι: ἀρκεῖ γὰρ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ἡμετέρου λόγου τὸ ἔχειν πατρόθεν ἥκουσαν
πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παράδοσιν, ofovel τινα κλῆρον δι᾽ ἀκολουθίας ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων διὰ
τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἁγίων παραπεμφθέντα: οἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν καινότητα ταύτην μετατιθέντες τὰ
δόγματα, πολλῆς ἂν δέοιντο τῆς ἐκ τῶν λογισμῶν συμμαχίας" εἰ μέλοιεν μὴ τοὺς
κονιορτώδεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ εὑριπίστους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐμβριθεῖς τε καὶ βεβη-
κότας ταῖς διανοίαις προσάγεσθαι: ἕως δ᾽ ἂν ἀκατάσκευος αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναπόδεικτος 6
λόγος προφέροιτ᾽ ἂν, τίς οὕτως ἠλίθιος καὶ κτηνώδης, ὡς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν τε καὶ
ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις διαλαμψάντων, ἀσθενεστέραν τὴν
διδασκαλίαν τῆς ἀναποδείκτου φλυαρίας ποιήσασθαι. Ip. ib. orat. 2. p. 126,
7. (orat. 3. pp. 554, 5. ed. 1638.) I have taken the liberty in the last sentence
of slightly altering the Editor’s punctuation, which seems clearly incorrect as well
as his version.
2 Οὗτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων ἄρχεται, Kal, ὡς ἀποδεδειγμένων, ἀρχὴν τῷ
ἐφεξῆς δίδωσι λόγῳ. ΤΟ. ib. p. 126.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 147
seology elsewhere, that he was referring to the Tradition of the
Apostles in their writings handed down to him by those who
had preceded him. For, in another place, having remarked,
“ Let us believe that only to be the true mystery of piety which
“ has been delivered [παρεδόθη] to us by the Word himself and
“ God,” and having spoken of “the faith put forth by the Lord
of all,” he adds,—“ which [faith] word for word we keep pure and
“ intact as we received it, and judge the least depravation of the
“ words delivered [παραδοθέντων] the extreme of blasphemy and
“impiety. We believe therefore as our Lord set forth the faith
* to his disciples, saying, ‘ Go and teach all nations,’ &c......
“ This faith delivered by God to the Apostles we neither
“ diminish nor change nor add to.”!_ Where it is evident that
Scripture only is referred to.
And Holy Scripture is often referred to by the Fathers as
having come down to them by successional delivery from one
to another from the times of the Apostles through the succession
of bishops and pastors of the Church. An instance occurs in a
passage of Augustine given p. 169, below.
Eruram Syrus. (fi. a. 370.)
“ The end and aim of piety,” says Ephrem Syrus, “is clearly
“ set before us ; it consists, namely, in our believing agreeably
“ to the sacred declarations of the Gospels, and the rest of the
“ Holy Scriptures, giving ourselves up also to every good work,
“ and to the cultivation of every virtue.”?
And again, he sums up the Christian’s faith in a belief in
“ those things that are written in the divine Scriptures.”*
1 Τῇ παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου τῶν ὅλων ἐκτεθείσῃ πίστει: ἣν ἐπὶ λέξεως καθαρὰν καὶ
ἀπαρεγχείρητον φυλάσσομεν ὡς παρελάβομεν" καὶ τὴν ἐν ὀλίγῳ παρατροπὴν τῶν
παραδοθέντων ῥημάτων ἐσχάτην κρίνοντες βλασφημίαν τε καὶ ἀσέβειαν. Πιστεύ-
ομεν οὖν καθὼς ἐξέθετο τοῖς μαθηταῖς τὴν πίστιν 5 Κύριος 6 εἰπών" ὅτι πορευθέντες
μαθητεύσατε kK. T.A...... ταύτης οὖν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις παραδοθείσης
τῆς πίστεως, οὔτε ὑφαίρεσιν, οὔτε παραλλαγὴν, οὔτε προσθήκην ποιούμεθα. ID.
Contra Eunom. orat. i. init. tom. ii. p. 2. (orat. 2. init. tom. ii. ed. 1638.)
2 Σκοπὸς τῆς εὐσεβείας προκείμενος εἰς τὸ πιστεύειν κατὰ τὰς ἱερὰς τῶν εὐαγ-
γελίων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν ἐπαγγελίας, ἐπιδιδόντας ἑαυτοὺς εἰς πᾶν
ἔργον ἀγαθὸν καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν Gperis ἐπιτήδευσιν. Eruram. Syr. Instit. ad
Monach. Op. ed. Rom. 1732 et seq. tom. iii. p. 325.
3 Σὺ δὲ πιστεύε, ἀγαπητὲ, τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς. Ip. In
illud, Attende tibi ipsi. cap. 4. tom. i. p. 234.
L 2
ry
148 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
AmBROSE (fl. a. 374.)
We come next to Ambrose, whose testimony is as follows.
“ Trust to no one,” he says, “to guide you, but where the light
“ of that lamp [i. e. Scripture] goes before. For where you
“ think it shines, there is a whirlpool ; it seems to shine, but it
« defiles ; and where you think that it is firm or dry, there it is
“ slippery. And, moreover, if you have ἃ lamp, the way is long.
“ Therefore let faith be the guide of your journey ; let the divine
“ Scripture be your path. Excellent is the guidance of the hea-
“venly word. From this lamp light your lamp ; that the eye
“of your mind, which is the lamp of your body, may give
* light.”}
Again, he says,—“ I read that he is first, I read that he is
“ not second ; let those who say that he is second, show where
they read it.” ?
Again; “I would not, O sacred Emperor, that you should
“ trust to argument, and any reasoning of mine; let us inquire
“ of the Scriptures ; let us interrogate the Apostles ; let us inter-
“ yogate the Prophets ; let us interrogate Christ.” ὃ
So far from making his interpretation of Scripture part of
the Rule of faith, as derived from “ Tradition,” or on any other
ground, he entreats the emperor not to trust to his explanation
of the matter, but to go to Scripture as that upon which alone
his faith should be founded, and make Scripture the judge of
the controversy.
And to the same effect he speaks in other places of the same
work.* As also elsewhere ; as, for instance,—‘‘I would not
1 “Nulli credas tuum, nisi preeunte lucerne istius luce, processam. Nam ubi
putas quod luceat, gurges est: videtur lucere, sed polluit: et ubi putas solidum
esse vel siccum, ibi lubricum est. Sed et si lucerna tibi, iter longius sit. Sit
ergo fides tibi itineris tui previa, sit tibi iter Scriptura divina. Bonus est ccelestis
ductus eloquii. Ex hac lucerna accende et tu lucernam ; ut luceat interior oculus
tuus, qui lucerna est tui corporis.” AmBros. In Psalm, 118, Serm. 14. § 11. Op.
ed. Bened. Paris. 1686. tom. i. col. 1143.
2 «Tego quia primus est, lego quia non est secundus. Illi qui secundum
aiunt, doceant lectione.” Ib. De instit. virg. c. 11. i. 265.
3 “Sed nolo argumento credas, sancte Imperator, et nostrz disputationi : Scrip-
turas interrogemus, interrogemus apostolos, interrogemus prophetas, interrogemus
Christum.” In. De fide, lib. 1. ο. 6. 11. 451.
4 See ib. c. 16. 11, 464.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 149
“that my statement should be trusted, let the Scripture be
“ recited.”
Other passages might be quoted confirmatory of the same
view.”
And, as it respects more particularly the exclusiveness and
completeness of Scripture as our only divine revelation, he says,
“ον can we use those things which we do not find in the
Holy Scriptures ?”%
Again, more pointedly, commenting on Δίας]. xxi. 12, (or,
Luke xix. 45) he says, “The Lord’s money is the divine Scrip-
“ture; for when about to depart, he distributed pence to his
“* servants, and divided talents ; and for the cure of the wounded.
* man, left two pieces of money to the keeper of the inn; for,
“ by the two Testaments, our wounds are cured.?*
Similar passages might easily be added.*
And here we may notice also, that, as it respects the full de-
livery of the Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son
with the Father, the author of the Treatise, “On the orthodox
faith against the Arians,” attributed to Ambrose, and admitted
by the Benedictines to be an antient and beautiful treatise, and
referred to by Augustine, observes,—‘“ Since, therefore, you
“‘ may recognise this unity of substance in the Father and Son,
“ not only by Prophetic but by Evangelical authority [passages
“ from the prophets and the Gospel of John having been quoted
“in proof of it], how say you, that ‘consubstantial’ is not
“ found in the divine Scriptures; as if ‘consubstantial’ was
“ anything else than what he says, ‘I came forth from God the
1 « Nolo nobis credatur, Scriptura recitetur.” Ip. De incarn. Dominic. Sacram.
ce. 8. ii. 706.
2 See in Psalm. 118. Serm. 8. ὃ 59. i. 1078. and, Expos. Evang. sec. Luc. lib.
8. § 19. 1. 1474.
3 “(πὲ in Scripturis sanctis non reperimus, ea quemadmodum usurpare possu-
mus?” Ip. De offic. Ministr. lib. 1. ο. 23. ii. 29.
4 «Pecunia Domini Scriptura divina est; nam et denarios servis distribuit
profecturus, et talenta divisit, et pro sanitate hominis vulnerati duo era stabulario
dereliquit; duobis enim Testamentis vulnera nostra curantur.” Ib. Expos,
Evang. sec. Luc. lib. 9. ὃ 18. i. 1498.
5 See De Paradiso, c. 12. i. 171. and, Expos. in Psalm. 118. Serm. 18. ὃ 37,
i. 1206,
150 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
« Father,’ and ‘I and the Father are one ;’ or what the prophets
“ clearly intimate as to the substance of God Ὁ
Jerome. (fl. a. 378.)
We pass on to the celebrated Jerome.
“Our care 15,᾽ says Jerome, “to speak, not what each may
be able or willing to speak, but what the Scriptures direct.” 5
“When anything appears to you harsh in my work, do not
“ look at my words, but at Scripture, whence my words are
‘derived. =
“Tt is to be proved by us, by the testimonies of the Holy
Scriptures, in which God speaks every day to those who believe.’”*
«Lest you should cavil at anything,” he says to Helvidius,
“ and writhe yourself like a slippery snake, you must be bound
“ by the chains of testimonies, lest you querulously murmur,
“ and say that you are overcome rather by tortuous argumenta-
* tions, than by the truth of Scriptures.” And this remark,
be it observed, is made respecting a point which is expressly
instanced by the Tractators as one that depends upon “ Tradi-
tion,” and in which “Tradition” is a sufficient informant,
namely, the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord.
Again ; “ Moreover, since the Lord’s flesh is meat indeed, and
“his blood drink indeed, by consequence we have this only
““ good in the present life, to feed upon his flesh and drink his
“ blood, not only sacramentally, but also in the reading of the
1 «Cum ergo hane unitatem substantie in Patre et Filio non solum Prophetica
sed et Evangelica auctoritate cognoscas, quomodo dicis in Scripturis divinis
ὁμοούσιον non inveniri, quasi aliud sit ὁμοούσιον quam quod dicit, Ego de Patre
exivi, et, Ego et Pater unum sumus; vel quod prophet ex aperto substantiam
Dei intimabant?” Anon. De fide orthodoxa contr. Arian. c. 5. Inter Op.
AMBROS, tom. ii. App. col. 351, 2.
? “Nobis cure est, non quod unusquisque possit aut velit, sed quid Scripturz
precipiant, dicere.” Hreron. Ep. ad Pammach. contr. Jovin. ep. 48. § 15. Op.
ed. Vallars. Venet. 1766 et seq. tom. i. col. 228.
3. “ Quando aliquid tibi asperum videtur in nostro opusculo, non ad mea verba
respicias, sed ad Scripturam, unde mea tracta sunt verba.” In. ib. § 20. i. 233.
* “Quod nobis sanctarum Scripturarum testimoniis asserendum est, in quibus
quotidie credentibus loquitur Deus.” Ip. Ep. ad Ctesiph. ep. 133. § 13. i. 1042.
° “Ne in aliquo cayilleris, et te quasi lubricus anguis evolvas, testimoniorum
stringendus es vinculis, ne querulus sibiles, et dicas, te magis argumentationi-
bus tortuosis quam Scripturarum veritate superatum.” Ip, Ady. Helvid. § 14.
ii. 221.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 151
“ Scriptures. For the true meat and drink which is taken from
“ the word of God, is the knowledge of the Scriptures.”’!
“ The error, neither of parents nor ancestors, is to be followed ;
“ but the authority of the Scriptures, and the government of God
“ as our teacher.” ?
“ All the questions raised by the heretics and the heathen are
“ the same, because they do not follow the authority of the Scrip-
“ tures, but the sense of human reason.” ®
* For all questions, let us seek for suitable beams from the
“ testimonies of the Scriptures, and cut them down, and build
“ the house of wisdom within us.” *
A still more remarkable testimony occurs in his Comment on
Haggai, where he thus speaks :—‘“ The other things, also, which
they find and feign, of themselves, without the authority and
“ὁ testimonies of the Scriptures, AS IF BY APOSTOLICAL TRADITION,
“ the sword of God [the word of God in the Scriptures] strikes
{ down.” 5
Again; “ They therefore err, because they know not the
* Scriptures ; and because they are ignorant of the Scriptures,
“ they consequently know not the power of God ; that is, Christ,
“‘ who is the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” ®
And again, on the question, who the Zacharias, son of
Barachias, was, who is mentioned Matt. xxui., he says, “ Some
1 «Porro quia caro Domini verus est cibus, et sanguis ejus verus est potus,
juxta ἀναγωγὴν hoc solum habemus in presenti seculo bonum, si vescamur carne
ejus et cruore potemur, non solum in Mysterio sed etiam in Scripturarum lectione.
Verus enim cibus et potus, qui ex verbo Dei sumitur, scientia Scripturarum est.”
In. In Eccles. ο. 3. iii. 413.
2 “Nec parentum nec majorum error sequendus est; sed auctoritas Scriptura-
rum et Dei docentis imperium.” In. In Jerem. c. 9. vv. 12—14. iv. 907.
3 “Omnes hereticorum et gentilium questiones eedem sunt, quia non Scrip-
turarum auctoritatem sed humane rationis sensum sequuntur.” Ip. In Os. ¢. 7.
vi. 80, 81.
4 “Ad singula problemata, congrua de testimoniis Scripturarum ligna que-
rentes, preecidamus ea, et <dificemus domum sapientis in nobis.” Ib. In Agg.
ec. 1. vv. 7, 8. vi. 747.
5 “Sed et alia que absque auctoritate et testimoniis Scripturarum, quasi tra-
ditione Apostolica, sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius Dei [1. 6.
sermo Dei].” Ip. In Aggzum, 6. 1. vv. 11, 12. vi. 749.
6 «Propterea errant, quia Scripturas nesciunt; et quia Scripturas ignorant,
consequenter nesciunt virtutem Dei, hoc est, Christum qui est Dei virtus et Dei
sapientia.” Ip. In Matth. ο, 22. ver. 29. vii. 178.
152 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ think, that Zacharias, the father of John, is to be understood ;
“ proving it from some dreams of Apocryphal writers, that he
“was put to death, because he preached the advent of the
“Saviour. But this, as it has no authority from the Scriptures,
“we are at equal liberty to despise or approve.”! <A passage
which tends strongly to show, where alone he considered himself
able to place confidence, even for such points as these.
I add a reference below” to some other confirmatory pas-
sages.
Moreover, he distinctly refers to Scripture, not only as able to
be the Judge of controversies, and determine them, but as the
Judge to which we ought to resort, to distinguish between true
and false doctrines.
“ The arguments of the heretics,’ he says, “ and through
“ them of the philosophers, may be answered by a few short sen-
“ tences of the Scriptures,” ®
“ There is no argument that is so forcible, as a passage from
“ the Holy Scriptures.” 4
“ We may spiritually say, when they persecute usin one city,
“ that is, im one book or testimony of the Scriptures, let us fly
“to other cities, that is, to other books.”> We are not to go
to Tradition, when the heretics try to wrest passages of Scrip-
ture from us, but to other parts of Scripture.
Again, still more clearly ;—“ Blasphemy is produced, if....
“ he who is in the Church and believes in God, errs in doctrines
“ which it is not lawful to be ignorant of; thinking differently
“of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, from what the truth
1 “Alii Zachariam patrem Joannis intelligi volunt, ex quibusdam apocry-
phorum somniis approbantes, quod propterea occisus sit, quia Salvatoris predi-
carit adventum. Hoc quia de Scripturis non habet auctoritatem, eadem faci-
litate contemnitur qua probatur.” Ip. In Matth. ec. 23. vv. 35, 6. vii. 190.
2 See Preef. in Expos. Isai. iv.1, 2. In Mich. ο. 7. ver. 5—7. vi. 520. In Naum,
c. 3. ver. 18, 19. vi. 585, 6. In Matth. ec. 21. ver. 43. vii. 171. In Tit. ¢. 1. ver. 10,
11. vii. 704.
3 « Paucis sententiolis Scripturarum possint hereticorum et per eos philosopho-
rum argumenta convinci.” Ip, Ep. ad Ctesiph. ep. 183. § 2. i. 1027.
4 “Nihil ita percutit ut exemplum de Scripturis sanctis.” Ip. In Zach. c. 10.
ver. 15, 16. vi. 868.
5 “ Spiritualiter possumus dicere ; quum persequuti nos fuerint in una civitate,
hoc est in uno Scripturarum libro vel testimonio, nos fugiamus ad alias civitates,
id est, ad alia volumina.” Ip. In Matth. c. 10, ver. 23, 4. vii. 61.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 159
“ of the matter itself requires ; not believing in the resurrection
“‘ of the dead, according to what the Scriptures teach......
“* Whence the Scriptures are to be read by us with all earnestness ;
“and we should meditate in the law of the Lord day and night,
“ that, as eaperienced moneychangers, we may know which is good
“money, and which bad.”* A more decisive testimony to the
point, could hardly be penned.
Further, his testimonies to the fulness and perfection of Scrip-
ture, are clear and distinct. “ The doctrine of the Church,” he
says, “ which is the house of God, may be found in the fulness
of the divine books.’’?
“ As we deny not these things that are written, so we reject
“those things that are not written. That God was born of
“a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary married
“ after the birth, we believe not, because we read it not.” The
instance, with respect to which these words were spoken, may
show us, how comprehensive is the sense in which they were
uttered.
Again; “ The Church of Christ,—which is in a flourishing
* state, and, possessing Churches throughout the whole world,
“is jomed together by unity of spirit, and has the cities of
“ the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel, and the Apostles,—has
“not gone out of her own borders, that is, from the Holy
* Scriptures.”’#
Again ; “ That storehouse in which are hid all the treasures of
1 “ Blasphemia. . profertur, si....in Ecclesia constitutus et credens in Deum
labatur in dogmatibus que ignorare non licitum est: aliter de Patre, et Filio, et
Spiritu Sancto sentiens quam rei ipsius veritas habet: non ita credens in resur-
rectione mortuorum ut Scripture docent.... Unde omni studio legende nobis
Scripture sunt, et in Lege Domini meditandum die ac nocte; ut probati trapezite
sciamus, quis nummus probus sit, quis adulter.” Ip. In Ephes. ec. 4. ver. 31.
vii. 637.
2 “Doctrina Ecclesie, que domus Dei est, in librorum reperiatur plenitudine
divinorum.” Ip. Ep. ad Paulum, ep. 30. ὃ 6. i. 149.
3 “Ut hee que scripta sunt, non negamus, ita ea que non sunt scripta, re-
nuimus. Natum Deum esse de Virgine credimus, quia legimus; Mariam nup-
sisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus.” Ip, Ady. Helvid. § 19.
ii. 226, 7.
4 « Heclesiam [Ecclesia] autem Christi, que habitat bene, et in toto orbe eccle-
sias possidet, [possidens, Hrasm.]| spiritus unitate conjuncta est, et habet urbes
Legis, Prophetarum, Evangelii et Apostoiorum, non est egressa de finibus suis, id
est, de Scripturis sanctis.” Ip. in Mich. c. 1. ver. 10 et seq. vi. 444, 5.
154 THE DOCTRINE ‘OF THE FATHERS
* wisdom and knowledge, [Col. ii.] is either God the Word, who
“ seems hidden in the flesh of Christ, or the Holy Scriptures, in
* which the knowledge of the Saviour is laid up.”?
And lastly, he tells us, that the whole doctrine, by which we
become acquainted with God, and are not left ignorant why we
are created, is contained in the divine books,” and that God
hath made known to us by his Scriptures all the mysteries of
religion.?
How all these testimonies can be explained away, I cannot
conjecture.
And as to any notion of even the existence of Catholic Consent,
we have already shown,‘ that he entertained no such idea. And
to the passages there mentioned, we may add, that when
speaking elsewhere of Origen, he says,—‘ Others also, as well
* Greeks as Latins, have erred in the faith.... 1 read him
“ [Origen] as others; because he has erred like others ;”® and
hence he says, in another place, with reference to the daughter
of the person he was addressing, after having mentioned Cy-
prian, Athanasius, and Hilary, “The rest let her so read as
rather to judge, than to follow them.’’®
THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 385.)
Let us proceed to another able and excellent witness, Theo-
philus of Alexandria.
He tells us, that “it would be the instigation of a demoniacal
“ spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and ¢o think
1 «Thesaurus iste in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiw et scientiz absconditi
[Col. 2.1 aut Deus Verbum est, qui in carne Christi videtur absconditus, aut
sanctee Scripture, in quibus reposita est notitia Salvatoris.” Ip. In Matth.
ce. 13. ver. 44, vil. 97.
2 «Quum....ratio omnis et sermo divinis libris contineatur, per quos et
Deum discimus, et quare creati sumus, non ignoramus; miror quosdam ex-
titisse,” ἄς, Ip. Preef.in Comm. in Ephes. vii. 537, 8.
3 « Per Scripturas suas nobis nota fecerit universa mysteria.”” Ip. In Ephes.
6. 1. ver. 9. vii. 555.
4 See pp. 13, 14. above.
5 “Erraverunt in fide alii tam Greci quam Latini.... Sic legam ut ceteros,
quia sic erravit ut ceteri.’ Ip. Ep. ad Pammach. et Ocean. ep. 84. ὃ 8. i. 530.
5 “ Ceteros sie legat, ut magis judicet quam sequatur.” In. Ep. ad Letam,
ep. 107. § 12. i. 688. See also similar observations in his Ep. ad Tranquillinum,
ep. 62. ὃ 2. i. 352. and his Comment. in Agg. c. i. vi. 750.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 155
“ anything divine, beyond what has the authority of the Scrip-
tures ;”” which entirely disposes of the claims set up for Eccle-
siastical Tradition as a divine informant.
As to the claims of Scripture, as the sole authoritative Rule
of faith, he speaks thus ;—
“ Tt is another thing if they can show, from the Scriptures,
“ that God the Word had this soul before he was born of Mary ;
“ and that it was called his soul, before his assumption of flesh.
“ But if they are compelled, both by the authority of the Scrip-
“ tures, and by reason itself, to believe that Christ had not a soul
““ before he was born of Mary, (for, in the assumption of human
“nature, his soul also was assumed,) they are evidently con-
“ victed of saying, that the same soul was his, and not his.
“ But let them cease, in their madness, from the impiety of these
“ new doctrines. We, following the rule of the Scriptures, will
“ proclaim, with the whole energy of our hearts, that neither his
“ flesh nor soul existed, before he was born of Mary.” ὅ
“ Wherefore, if they wish to celebrate with the Church the
“ feast of Easter, let those who prefer the dreams of Origen fo
“ the authority of the Scriptures, hear God saying, ὅζο.᾽ ὃ
“ As the most impious of the heathen prefer error and custom
“ to truth, making idols after the hkeness of men . . . . so Origen,
“ through the easiness and impiety of believers, hath let fall in
“‘ his works [observations that are,] as it were, temples of idols ;
“ which we subverting by the authority of the Scriptures, and the
“ zeal [weapon] of faith, may use this similitude ; for, as masons
1 «Deemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus, sophismata humanarum mentium
sequi, et aliquid extra Scripturarum auctoritatem putare divinum.” THEropuit.
Axex. Epist. Paschal. la. § 6. in Biblioth. Vet. Patrum, ed. Galland. tom. vii.
p- 617.
2 « Aliud est, si possunt de Scripturis docere, antequam nasceretur ex Maria,
habuisse hance animam Deum Verbum, et ante carnis adsumtionem animam illius
nuncupatam. Quod si et auctoritate Scripturarum et ipsa suscipere ratione
coguntur, Christum non habuisse animam antequam de Maria nasceretur, (in
adsumtione enim hominis et anima ejus adsumta est,) perspicue convincuntur
eamdem animam et illius et non illius fuisse dicere. Sed cessent illi a novorum
dogmatum impietate furibundi. Nos Scripturarum normam sequentes, tota cordis
audacia preedicemus, quod nec caro illius nec anima fuerint, priusquam de Maria
nasceretur.” Ip. in Epist. Paschal. 2a. § 8. ead. ed. p. 626.
3 “Quapropter si volunt cum Ecclesia Dominicum Pascha celebrare, qui
auctoritati Scripturarum Origenis preferunt deliramenta, audiant inclamantem
Deum,” &. Id. in Epist. Paschal. 2a. ὃ 19. p. 630.
156 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ wishing to build a house four-square, measure out walls in all
“ respects equal, and shaping them by line and rule, build what
“ they intended; and join the four equal sides by a square at
“‘ the angles at the top and bottom, preserving the same pro-
“ portion throughout, so that beauty of work may be united
“ with diversity of materials, and the angular lines may be
“ secured by the art with which the building is constructed ; so
“ the teachers of the Church, having the testimony of the Scrip-
“ tures, make the foundations of doctrine immoveable, and re-
“ main fearless; presenting their works to Christ, and saying,
“ «Strengthen me in thy words.’ [Ps. exxvi. 28.]”?
Again ;—“ As the helmsmen of great ships, when they see an
“‘ immense wave coming from the deep, as hunters with a fierce
* wild beast, meet the foaming billows, and bear up against
“ them, by opposing to them the prow, turning the rudders in
“ the opposite direction ........ so they who have a regard
“ for their own safety, imitate this example, and using the revela-
“« tion of the divine words as a rudder, meet the tempest and the
“« waves of heretics, the law of God serving them in the place of
“ skill; that those who had fallen may be raised, those who
“ stand may stand firm, and all together may be preserved by
“ the aid of its doctrine. For WHAT THE RUDDER IS TO THE
‘‘ HELMSMAN, THAT THE LAW OF Gop Is TO THE SOUL.”
1 “ Sicut ethnicorum impiissimi errorem et consuetudinem preeferunt veritati,
fabricantes in hominum similitudinem idola.. .. ita Origenes facilitate et impietate
credentium, quasi delubra idolorum, tractatuum suorum monimentis demisit, que
nos auctoritate Scripturarum et zelo [9 telo] fidei subvertentes, utamur 1118 simili-
tudine: ut enim cementarii quadram volentes edificare domum, zquales ex omni
parte parietes metiuntur, eosque norma et perpendiculo dirigentes quod animo
depinxerint opere exstruunt; et ejusdem mensuree per quadrum latera quatuor
jungunt angulis sursum ac deorsum, coeptam equalitatem paullatimque incrementa
servantes, ut materi diversitatem jungat operis pulcritudo, et angulares lineas
artifex structura custodiat; sic ecclesie praceptores, habentes testimonia Scrip-
turarum, firma doctrine faciunt fundamenta, et intrepidi permanent, offerentes
opera sua Christo, atque dicentes, ‘Confirma me in verbis tuis.’” [Ps. 128. 28.]
Id. in Epist. Paschal. 3a. § 13. p. 637.
2 “Sicut enim gubernatores magnarum navium, cum viderint immensum ex
alto venire gurgitem, quasi venatores ferocissimam bestiam, spumantes fluctus
suscipinnt, eosque prore objectione sustentant, flectentes in diversum gubernacula
hese qui sui curam gerunt, imitantur exempli similitudinem, et divinorum
dispensatione verborum quasi gubernaculo utentes, occurrunt hereticorum tem-
pestati et fluctibus, legem Dei pro arte retinentes, ut qui corruerant, suscitentur ;
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 157
Rurinvs, (fl. a. 390.)
Rufinus, after enumerating the canonical books of the Old
and New Testament, adds these words, ‘These are the books
“ which the Fathers have included within the canon; and out
“ of these they intended that the articles of our faith should be
“ framed.”
And a little further on he tells us, that in these alone is to be
found the word of God, knowing nothing of Tradition as another
divine informant. “ It appeared fit,” he says, “to point out in
“ this place these things which have been delivered to us by our
* Fathers, for the instruction of those who are receiving the
“< first principles of the Church and faith, that they may know
“ what are the sources out of which they may draw for them-
“ selves the word of God.”*
AuaustINE. (fl. a. 396.)
The next Father to whom we would direct the reader’s atten-
tion, is the celebrated Augustine, whose testimony, as it respects
points of faith, is without exception wholly with us.
“ Against ensnaring errors,” he says, “ God was pleased to lay
“ down a firm support in the Scriptures ; against which no one
‘< dares to speak, who at all desires to appear a Christian.”®
“ Let our writings be put out of sight; let the book of God
“be brought forward; hear Christ’s words, hear the truth
“ speaking,” referring to’ Luke xxiv. 47.*
qui stant, firmo perseverent gradu, et omnes in commune doctrine opitulatione
serventur. Quod enim gubernatori clavus, hoc animo est lex Dei.” Id. in Epist.
Paschal. 3a. § 14. pp. 637, 8.
1 “Hee sunt [i.e. volumina] que Patres intra Canonem concluserunt, ex
quibus fidei nostre assertiones constare voluerunt.” Ruri Expos. Symb. Art.
ult. ; ed. ad cale. Op. Cyprrant ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. p. 26. (ed. Col. 1617. p. 319.)
2 « Hee nobis a Patribus tradita opportunum visum est hoc in loco designare,
ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi Hcclesiz ac fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut
sciant, ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint pocula.” Ib. ib. p. 27.
(p. 320.)
3 “Contra insidiosos errores Deus voluit ponere firmamentum in Scripturis,
contra quas nullus audet loqui, qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum.”’
Avaust. In Ep. Johann. tract. 2. § 1. Op. ed. Bened. Par. 1679 et seq. tom.
iii. part. 2. col. 836.
4 « Auferantur de medio charte nostra, procedat in medium codex Dei; audi
Christum dicentem, audi veritatem loquentem.” [Luc. 24, 47.] Ib. Enarr. in
Ps. 57. ver. 4. § 6. iv. 545.
158 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ As the night extinguishes not the stars in heaven, so ini-
“ quity overcomes not the minds of the faithful, while cleaving
“to the firm foundation of God’s Scripture.”’!
“Since, therefore, in every question that concerns life and
“ manners, not doctrine only, but exhortation also is necessary,
“ that by doctrine we may know what is to be done, and by ex-
“ hortation we may be roused to action, lest we should be slow
“to do what we know ought to be done, what can I teach you
“ more than that which we read in the Apostle. For the holy
“ Seripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, that we should not pre-
“ sume to be wise beyond what we ought to be; but, as he says,
“ Jet us be wise soberly, as God hath given to each the measure
“ of faith. Therefore I desire not otherwise to teach you, than
“ to expound to you the words of the teacher ; and from them
“ to discuss what the Lord has given.”?
« The Lord, having spoken, first by the prophets, then by
“ himself, afterwards by the Apostles, as much as he judged
“to be sufficient, formed also the Scripture, which is called
“ Canonical, to be of pre-eminent authority, in which we place
“ our faith, as it respects those things which it is not expedient
“ for us to be ignorant of, and which we are not sufficient of
“ ourselves to obtain the knowledge of.’’®
“ The city of God believes also the Holy Scriptures of the
“ Old and New Testament, which we call Canonical; whence
“ that faith itself takes its rise, by which the just lives; and by
“ which we walk without hesitation, as long as we are absent
1 «Sicut stellas in ccelo non extinguit nox, sic mentes fidelium inherentes fir-
mamento Scripture Dei non vincit iniquitas.’ Ip. Enarr. in Ps. 94. § 29. iv.
1021.
2 «Cum igitur in omni queestione que ad vitam moresque pertinet, non sola
doctrina verum etiam exhortatio sit necessaria, ut doctrina quid agendum sit
noverimus, exhortatione autem excitemur, ne pigeat agere, quod agendum esse
jam novimus, quid ego amplius te doceam, quam id quod apud Apostolum
legimus? Sancta enim Scriptura nostre doctrine regulam figit, ne audeamus
sapere plus quam oportet sapere ; sed sapiamus, ut ipse ait, [Rom. xii. 3.] ad
temperantiam, sicut unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Non sit
ergo mihi alind te docere, nisi verba tibi doctoris exponere, et de iis quod
Dominus dederit disputare.” Ip. De bono viduit. ¢. 1. vi. 369, 370.
3 “ Hic prius per prophetas, deinde per seipsum, postea per Apostolos, quan-
tum satis esse judicavit, locutus, etiam Scripturam condidit, que canonica
nominatur, eminentissime auctoritatis, cui fidem habemus de his rebus quas
ignorare non expedit, nec per nosmetipsos nosse idonei sumus.” Ip. De civ.
Dei, lib. 11. ¢. 8. vii. 279.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 159
“ from the Lord ; and which being preserved safe and secure,
“ we may, without just blame, doubt concerning some things
“ which we have not perceived by sense or reason, and which
“have not been clearly manifested to us by the Canonical
“ Seripture, nor come under our knowledge by witnesses whom
“ we cannot, without absurdity, disbelieve.” !
“ Being about to speak of the day of God’s last judgment. .
“we ought first to place, as the foundation of the edifice, the
* divine testimonies.” *
Again, in his controversy with Maximinus the Arian, he says,—
“ But now neither ought Ito produce the Council of Nice, (or,
“ Niczea) nor you that of Ariminum, as if we could thus deter-
“ mine the question beforehand. Neither am I held by the
“ authority of the one, nor you by the authority of the other.
« Let the points, and causes, and reasons on both sides contend
“ against each other, with authorities of the Scriptures, wit-
“ nesses not belonging exclusively to either of us, but common
“ to both.”> “ By which words,” as the Tractators’ own wit-
ness, Bishop Taylor, remarks, “if St. Austin’s affirmative can
“ prevail, it is certain that nothing ought to be pretended for argu-
*< ment but Scripture, in matters of religion. For, if a general
“« Council, which is the best witness of Tradition, the best ex-
“ pounder of Scripture, the best determiner of a question, is not
“ a competent measure of determination, then certainly nothing
“else can pretend to it, nothing but Scripture. And if it be
“ yeplied, that this is only affirmed by him, in case that two
} “ Credit etiam [1. 6. Civitas Dei] Scripturis sanctis et veteribus et novis,
quas canonicas appellamus, unde fides ipsa concepta est, ex qua justus vivit ;
per quam sine dubitatione ambulamus, quamdiu peregrinamur a Domino ; qua salva
atque certa, de quibusdam rebus, quas neque sensu neque ratione percepimus,
neque nobis per Scripturam canonicam claruerunt, nec per testes quibus non cre-
dere absurdum est, in nostram notitiam pervenerunt, sine justa reprehensione
dubitamus.” Ib. De civ. Dei, lib. 19. c. 18. vii. 562.
2 “De die ultimi judicii Dei locuturi....tamquam in edificii fundamento
prius ponere testimonia divina debemus.” Ib. De civ. Dei, lib. 20. ¢. 1. vii.
573.
3 « Sed nune nee ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tamquam preju-
dicaturus, proferre Concilium. Nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius deti-
neris : Scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, sed utrisque com-
munibus testibus, res cum re, caussa cum caussa, ratio cum ratione concertet.”
Ip. Contr. Maximin. Arian. lib. 2. ο. 14. viii. 704.
160 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
““ Councils are, or seem contrary, I answer, that if Councils can
“be, or seem contrary, so that wise and good men cannot com-
“ petently insist upon their testimony, it is certain a man may
“ be deceived, or cannot justly be determined, by any topic but
“the words and consequences of Scripture ; and if this be the
“ only probation, then it is sufficient, that is certain . . . That
*‘ which I intend to persuade by these testimonies is, that the
“ Fathers of the Primitive Church did, in all their mysterious
“ inquiries of religion, in all matters of faith and manners, admit
no argument, but what was derived from Scripture.” ἢ
Again ; “ Let us not produce deceitful balances, where we
may weigh out what we like, and how we like, saying, as we
* please, This is heavy, this is light; but let us produce the
“ divine balance from the Holy Scriptures, as from the Lord’s
“ treasures ; and in it let us weigh out and prove what may be
“heavy, or rather let us not ourselves weigh it out, but acknow-
“ ledge what has been weighed out by the Lord.” ?
So to the Donatists he says,—“ Read this to us from the Law,
“ from the Prophets, from the Psalms, from the Gospel itself,
* from the Apostolical writings ; read it, and we believe.”—“ Let
“them read this to us from the Holy Scriptures, and we be-
* lieve.”—The Holy Scriptures are ‘the proofs, the founda-
* tions, the supports of our cause.” ὃ
And, “ according to these [i. 6. the books of the Prophets
“and Apostles],” he says, “we may freely judge of other wri-
“ tings, either of the faithful, or of unbelievers .... That which
“ agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures in the wri-
*“ tings of Cyprian, I accept to his praise; that which does not
** so agree, I reject without any offence to him.” #
[1
ce
1 Bp. Taytor’s Rule of Conse. ii. 3. 14. Works, xiii. 101, 2.
2 « Non afferamus stateras dolosas, ubi appendamus quod volumus, et quo-
modo volumus, pro arbitrio nostro dicentes, Hoe grave, hoe leve est: sed affe-
ramus divinam stateram de Scripturis sanctis tamquam de thesauris Dominicis,
et in illa quid sit gravius appendamus, immo non appendamus, sed a Domino
appensa recognoscamus.” Ip. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 2. ο. 6. ix. 101.
3 « Legite nobis hoe de Lege, de Prophetis, de Psalmis, de ipso Evangelio,
de Apostolicis litteris; legite et credimus.” Ip. Ep. ad Cathol. vulgo De
unit. Eccles. c. 6. ix. 345. “ Hoc nobis legant de Scripturis sanctis, et credimus.”
Ib. c. 17. col. 368. “Hee sunt causse nostre documenta, hee fundamenta,
hee firmamenta.” Ib. ο. 19. col. 373.
* “Secundum quos [i. 6. Prophetarum et Apostolorum libros} de ceteris
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 161
“ Where we are disputing on a very obscure point, in which
“we have not certain and clear proofs from the Divine Scrip-
“ tures to aid us, human presumption ought to restrain itself,
“ doing nothing by leaning to one side.” !
“ Although I should not be able to refute their arguments, I
“ see, nevertheless, that I must cleave close to those things that
“are most manifest in the Scriptures, that from these the ob-
“‘ scure may be cleared.”?
And he says that he considered himself perfectly free to judge
for himself in the writings of any men whatsoever of the Catho-
lics themselves, inasmuch as he owed unreserved consent only
to the canonical Scriptures. *
Further ; Scripture is a complete and perfect Rule according
to Augustine.
“ Whatever Christ wished us to read of his deeds and words,
“ this he directed his Apostles to write, as it were, with their
** own hands.” *
“ The Lord Jesus having done many things, they are not all
** written, as the same St. John the Evangelist testifies, that the
“ Lord Christ said and did many things that are not written ;
“ but those were chosen for writing, which appeared to be suff-
“ cient for the salvation of those who should believe.” ὅ
litteris vel fidelium vel infidelium libere judicemus ........ Quod in eis
[i. 6. litteris Cypriani] divinarum Scripturarum auctoritati congruit, cum laude
ejus accipio, quod autem non congruit, cum pace ejus respuo.” Ib. Contr. Crese.
Donat. lib. 2. cc. 31, 32. ix. 430.
1 “Ubi de re obscurissima disputatur, non adjuvantibus divinarum Scriptu-
rarum certis clarisque documentis, cohibere se debet humana presumtio, nihil
faciens in partem alteram declinando.’’ Ip. De peccat. merit. et remiss. c. 36.
x. 70. See also lib. iii. c. 10. ib. col. 80.
2 « Ego etsi refellere istorum argumenta non valeam, video tamen inheren-
dum esse iis que in Scripturis.sunt apertissima, ut ex his revelentur obscuya.”
Ip. De peccat. merit. et remiss. lib. iii. ὁ. 4. x. 74.
3“ Maxime quoniam me in hujusmodi quorumlibet hominum [i. e. catholi-
᾿ς ecorum tractatorum] scriptis liberum, quia solis canonicis debeo sine ulla re-
cusatione consensum, nihil movet quod de illius scriptis, cujus nomen non ibi
inveni, ille posuit.” In. De nat. et grat. contra Pelag. c. 61. x. 158.
4 « Quidquid ille [Christus] de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoe scri-
bendum illis [Apostolis] tamquam suis manibus imperavit.” Ib. De consens.
Evangel. lib. i. c. 35. iii. part. 2. col. 26.
5 “Cum multa fecisset Dominus Jesus, non omnia scripta sunt, sicut idem
ipse sanctus Johannes Evangelista testatur, multa Dominum Christum et dixisse
VOL. 11]. M
162 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ He hath appointed the authors of the Divine Scriptures to
“ be the mountains of Israel. There feed, that you may feed with
“ safety. Whatever ye shall hear from thence, let ἐξέ be accept-
“ able to you; whatever is not in them, reject.”
“In the divine Scripture is contained the Christian eru-
dition.”’*
Nay more; “ΙΝ THOSE THINGS THAT ARE LAID DOWN
“ PLAINLY IN SCRIPTURE, ARE FOUND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT
“ CONTAIN FAITH AND MANNERS OF LIFE ;”? where Bellarmine
admits, that his words apply to those things that are simply
necessary to all, naming the Creed and the Commandments,
hoping thereby to leave room for his “ Traditions ;”* but there
is no such limitation in the words of Augustine; and if there
were, they would include several points for which both Ro-
manists and Tractators send us to “ Tradition ;” as, for mstance,
the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; a doctrine,
indeed, which, as we have already seen,’ Augustine considers to
be only equivalent to what is expressed in so many words in
Scripture.
Once more, he says,— Hither with respect to Christ or his
“ Church, or anything else whatever that pertains to your faith
* or life, I will not say, ‘ We,’ because we are by no means to
“ be compared with him who said, ‘ Although we;’ but certainly
“ T will say what he has followed it up with; If an angel from _
“ heaven shall have preached to you anything beyond what ye
“ have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel, let
“ him be anathema.” ®
et fecisse que scripta non sunt; electa sunt autem que scriberentur que saluti
credentium sufficere videbantur.” Ip. In Johann. Evang. c. 11. Tract. 49. ὃ 1.
iii. part 2. col. 619.
1. Constituit montes Israel auctores Scripturarum divinarum. Ibi pascite,
ut secure pascatis. Quidquid inde audieritis, hoc vobis bene sapiat ; quidquid
extra est, respuite.” Ib. Serm. de Pastor. serm. 46, c. 11. v. 238.
2 « Scriptura divina, qua Christiana eruditio continectur.” Ib. De civ. Dei,
lib. 9. ὁ. 5. vii. 222.
3 «Tn iis que aperte in Scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia que
continent fidem moresque vivendi.” Ip. De doctr. Christian. lib. 2. ¢. 9. iii.
part. 1. col. 24.
4 Ber~taRM. De verb. Dei, lib. 4. ¢. 11.
5 Auaust. In Joh. Evang. ο. 16. tract. 97. § 4. iii. part. 2. col. 738. See vol. ii.
p- 185 above.
® “ Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacumque alia re que
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 163
To this passage, the only reply that Bellarmine can make is,
that the word preter, beyond or besides, here means contra,
against ; “ a novelty,” as Bishop Taylor says, “ taken up with-
“ out reason, but not without great need ;” adding, “ That St.
“‘ Austin did not mean only to reprove them that introduced
“ into faith and manners such things which were against Scrip-
“ ture, but such which were besides it, and whatsoever was not
“« in it, 15 plain by an established doctrine of his, affirming that
“ ¢ all things which appertain to life and doctrine, are found in
“ those things which are plainly set down in the Scriptures.’ Ὁ
We conclude, therefore, in the words of the same learned Pre-
late, that, “ By St. Austin’s doctrine the Scripture hath enough
“ for every one, and in all cases of necessary religion ; and much
“ more than what is necessary ; nay, there is nothing besides it
“ that can come into our rule.” *
Moreover, the Holy Scripture is continually referred to by
Augustine, as the Supreme Judge of controversies.
This is sufficiently apparent from the passages already ad-
duced; especially that from his book against Maximinus the
Arian, where he puts aside even the Council of Nice, and con-
stitutes Scripture the sole Judge of the controversy. But there
are many other similar testimonies in his writings.
Thus, in the controversy with the Pelagians as to the guilt of
infants, he says,—‘‘ That controversy requires ajudge. There-
fore let Christ judge,” proceeding to quote Matt. xxvi. 28; and
“ with him let the Apostle judge,” proceeding to quote Rom.
viii. 32.3
pertinet ad fidem vitamque vestram, non dicam nos, nequaquam comparandi ei
qui dixit, Licet si nos, sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, Si angelus de ccelo vobis
annuntiaverit preeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus et evangelicis accepistis,
anathema sit.” Ip. Contr. litt. Petil. lib. 8. c. 6. ix. 301. See also Epist.
ad Madaur. ep. 232. ὃ 3. ii.843. “Omnia que preteritis temporibus,” &e. A
similar passage occurs in the Serm. 38, ad fratr. in Erem. tom. vi. App.
col. 345. “Legite sanct. Script.,” &c.; but this discourse is by many reckoned
spurious.
1 Bp. Taytor’s Dissuas. Pt. 2. Bk. 1. § 2. Works x. 410. See also ib. pp.
409—11.
ΞΖ. ον, ps 411.
8. ἐς Tmmo parvuli quomodo rei non sunt, pro quibus Christus mortuus est ?
Ista controversia judicem querit. Judicet ergo Christus, et cui rei mors ejus
profecerit, ipse dicat. Hic est, inquit, sanguis meus, ἄς, [ Matt. 26, 28,1 Judicet
M 2
164 THE DOCTRINE“OF THE FATHERS
And in the controversy with the Pelagians on grace and
free-will, he says, “ Let the Apostle John sit as judge be-
tween us.””}
And in his controversy with the Donatists, he invariably
appeals to Scripture as the sole Judge fit to decide which was
the true Church.
“ One who is weak inquires for the Church ; one who is in
“error inquires for the Church. What do you say? The
“ Church is on the side of Donatus. I seek the voice of the
“ Shepherd. Read this to me from a Prophet, read it to me
“« from a Psalm ; recite it to me from the Law, recite it from the
“‘ Gospel, recite it from an Apostle... . Ido not believe your de-
“ clarations ; I would not that you should believe mine. Let
““ human writings be taken away ; let the divine words be heard.
“Give me one word of Scripture in fayor of Donatus.” 5
Again; “ Whether we are schismatics or you, neither should
“(1 nor you be interrogated ; but let Christ be asked, that he may
“ show his own Church. Read therefore the Gospel, ὅσο. 5
Again, “ Let us not hear, You say this, I say that ; but let
“us hear, Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books,
“ whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we
“ both obey ; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss
“‘ the question between us..... Therefore let those testimonies
“ which we mutually bring against each other, from any other
‘* quarter than the divine canonical books, be put out of sight.
« .... I would not have the holy Church demonstrated by
cum illo et Apostolus, &c. [Rom. viii. 32]. Auceust. De nupt. et concup. lib. 2.
c. 33. x. 331.
1 “Sedeat ergo inter nos judex apostolus Johannes, et dicat nobis, Carissimi,
diligamus invicem.” Ip. De grat. et lib. arb. c. 18. x. 737.
2 “Querit infirmus Ecclesiam, querit errans Ecclesiam. Tu quid dicis? Partis
Donati est Ecclesia. Ego vocem Pastoris inquiro. Lege hoc mihi de Propheta,
lege mihi de Psalmo, recita mihi de Lege, recita de Evangelio, recita de Apostolo
eet Non credo tuis; noli credere meis. Auferantur chart humane, sonent
voces divine. Ede mihi unam Scripture vocem pro parte Donati.” Ip. Serm.
de Pastor. serm. 46. c. 14. v. 242. A similar passage occurs in his Enarr. in
Ps. 69. § 6. iv. 715. “Si ergo queris,” &c.
3 “Utrum autem schismatici nos simus an vos, nec ego nec tu, sed Christus
interrogetur, ut indicet Ecclesiam suam. Lege ergo Evangelium,” ὥς, Ip, Contra
litt. Petil. lib. 2. ο. 8. ix. 271. y
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 165
“ human testimonies, but by the divine oracles..... We adhere
“ to this Church ; against those divine declarations we admit no
“ human cavils.... Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus
*“‘ said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them.
“ For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time,
“ perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to
“ the Canonical Scriptures of God.... All such matters, there-
“ fore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if
“ they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not
“in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of
“ any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for
“ even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord
““ prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in
“ the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms,
“in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings
“ and labours of the Evangelists, that is m all the canonical
“ authorities of the sacred books. Nor so as to collect together
*‘ and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or am-
“ biguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes,
* according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be
“ rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are
“* most clearly spoken, are first held by a firm faith. ...... We
“ ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the
“‘ Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various
“reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of
* men.... Whether they [i. 6. the Donatists] hold the Church,
“ they must show by the canonical books of the Divine Scriptures
“ alone; for we do not say that we must be believed because we
“ are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or
“ Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our com-
“ munion, commended that Church to which we belong; or
“because it is extolled by the councils of our colleagues, or
“ because through the whole world, in the holy places which
“ those of our communion frequent, such wonderful answers to
“ prayer or cures happen.... Whatever things of this kind
“take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be ap-
“ proved of, because they take place in the Catholic Church ;
“ but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these
166 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself, when he had
“risen from the dead... . judged that his disciples were to be
“ convinced by the testimonies of the Law, and the Prophets,
“ and the Psalms.... These are the proofs, these the founda-
“ tions, these the supports of our cause. We read, in the Acts
“ of the Apostles, of some who believed, that they searched the
“ Scriptures daily whether those things were so. What Scrip-
“tures, but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the
“ Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the
“ Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse
“of John.... But if they do not choose to understand, it is
“ sufficient for us that we adhere to that Church which is
“‘ demonstrated by such extremely clear testimonies of the Holy
“ and Canonical Scriptures.”’!
Augustine did not dream of supposing, that, because his ad-
versaries might not be convinced by the testimonies brought,
therefore Scripture was not a very sufficient Judge of the con-
troversy, or that such testimonies must be doubtful and ob-
1 “Non audiamus, Heee dicis, hee dico; sed audiamus, Hee dicit Dominus.
Sunt certe libri Dominici, quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus, utrique
cedimus, utrique servyimus; ibi queramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus caussam
nostram...... Auferantur ergo illa de medio, que adversus nos invicem non
ex divinis canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus...... Nolo humanis documentis,
sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. (c.3)......Nos hane Eccle-
siam tenemus, contra istas divinas voces nullas humanas criminationes admittimus
ΕἸΣ Ὁ Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus, O quid dixit Parmenianus, aut
Pontius, aut quilibet ilorum. Quia nec catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est,
sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei scripturas aliquid sentiant. (c. 11.)
erento Remotis ergo omnibus talibus ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt, non
in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in
litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam
contra ista verbo Domini preparati et cauti redditi sumus; sed in prescripto
Legis, in Prophetarum predictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris
vocibus, in Evangelistarum predicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus
canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et comme-
morent, quae obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quz quisque, sicut
voluerit, interpretetur secundum sensum suum. ‘Talia enim recte intelligi expo-
nique non possunt, nisi prius ea que apertissime dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur.
(c. 18.)...... Ecclesiam sicut ipsum Caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus
agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus et opinionibus et factis et dictis et visis
inquirere,..... Utrum ipsi Eeclesiam teneant, &c. (as above, vol. ii. p. 342.)......
Quod si nolunt intelligere, sufficit nobis quod eam tenemus Ecclesiam, que mani-
festissimis sanctarum et canonicarum Scripturarum testimoniis demonstratur.” Ip.
Ep. ad Cathol. vulg. De unit. Eccles. cc. 3, 11, 18, 19, 22. ix. col. 340—380.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 167
scure. Notwithstanding their refusal to be convinced, he holds
those testimonies to be abundantly clear and demonstrative ; as
he says elsewhere, “The Holy Scripture demonstrates the
Church, without any ambiguity.”?
Lastly, That he was altogether opposed to the notion of the
Tractators, that Consent of Fathers forms part of the Rule of
faith, we have already shown; but I will here add some further
extracts in proof of it.
Thus, in the latter part of the Letter to Jerome, already
quoted, he says, after alluding to the Fathers, “ But instead of
“ all these, nay, above all these, the Apostle Paul himself occurs
“tome. To him I betake myself; to him I appeal from all
“interpreters of his writings, who think differently,” &c.?
Again ; “If it is established by the clear authority of the
“ divine Scriptures, those I mean that are called Canonical in
“the Church, it is to be believed without any doubt. But
“ other witnesses or testimonies which are used to persuade you to
“ believe anything, you may believe or not, just as you shall see
“ that they have or have not any weight giving them a just claim
“ to your confidence.” ὃ
Again, after having referred to the Fathers, and quoted Am-
brose, Jerome, and Athanasius in favor of the view he was advo-
cating, against a dissentient from it, he says, that he refers to
them, in order that his opponent may see, that the question
deserved a calm and serious discussion, adding,—* For we ought
“ not to esteem the statements of any persons, however catholic,
*‘ and of whatever repute, as the Canonical Scriptures; so that
“it may not be lawful for us, without infringing upon the
1“ Heclesiam.« .; ἐς sine wla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat.” In.
Contra Crescon. Donat. lib. 1. ¢. 33. ix. 407, 8.
2 «“Veruntamen ipse mihi pro his omnibus, immo supra hos omnes, Apostolus
Paulus occurrit. Ad ipsum confugio; ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliud sentiunt
litterarum ejus tractatoribus provoco; ipsum interrogans interpello et requiro
in eo quod scripsit ad Galatas, vidisse se Petrum,” ἄρ. Ip. Ep. ad Hieron. ep.
82. c. 3. ii. 199.
3 «Si divinarum Scripturarum, earum scilicet que canonice in Ecclesia nomi-
nantur, perspicua firmatur auctoritate, sine ulla dubitatione credendum est.
Aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis, quibus aliquid credenduin esse suadetur, tibi
eredere vel non credere liceat, quantum ea momenti ad faciendum fidem vel
habere vel non habere perpenderis.” In. Ad Paulin. ep. 147. Proem. ii. 475.
168 THE DOCTRINE’ OF THE FATHERS
“ honor due to those men, to blame and reject this or that in
“their writings, if perchance we shall have found that they
“have been of a different opinion from what truth requires ;
“ truth as understood, by divine aid, either by others, or by our-
“selves. Such is my feeling when reading the writings of
** others, and such I wish to be the views of others when con-
“ sidering the meaning of mine.””!
Again, in-his controversy with the Manichees, after observ-
ing in defence of his belonging to the Catholic Church, that the
true wisdom was to be found in it, he says, that there were also
many other inducements to him to remain in it, as “ the consent
“of various people and nations, its authority, taking its rise
“from miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity,
“established by antiquity, the succession of priests, up to the
“ present episcopate, from the very chair of the Apostle Peter,
“to whom the Lord committed his sheep to be fed after his
“ resurrection, the very name of Catholic ;” and that among the
Manichees there were no inducements of this kind, but only the
promise of the truth; but, adds Augustine, “ if the truth is so
“clearly manifested that it cannot be doubted of, it is to be
“ preferred to all those inducements to remain in the Catholic
“© Church.”
Again, speaking of the ecclesiastical writers subsequent to the
Apostles, he says, —“ Which kind of literature is to be read, not
“with a necessity of believing, but with a liberty of judging of
1 «Neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quamvis catholicorum et laudatorum
hominum, velut Scripturas canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat, salva
honorificentia que illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare
atque respuere, si forte invenerimus quod aliter senserint quam veritas habet,
divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta vel a nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis
aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores meorum.” Ip. Ad Fortunat. ep. 148.
c. 4. ii, 502.
? “Multa sunt alia que in ejus gremio me justissime teneant. Tenet con-
sensio populorum atque gentium : tenet auctoritas miraculis inchoata, spe nutrita,
caritate aucta, vetustate firmata ; tenet ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascendas
oves suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit usque ad presentem episco-
patum successio sacerdotum ; tenet postremo ipsum Catholic nomen...... Apud
vos autem, ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat, sola personat veritatis
pollicitatio; quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non
possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor.” Ip, Contr.
epist. Manich. quam voc. Fundam. ο. 4, viii, 153.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 169
“it .... the excellence of the canonical authority of the Old
“ and New Testament is different from the books of later writers,
“‘ which being established in the times of the Apostles has,
“through the succession of bishops and the propagation of
“ churches, been placed as it were on high ina seat of authority,
to which every faithful and pious mind ought to be in sub-
Mageeblons si: But in the works of later writers, which are con-
tained in innumerable books, but by no means are equal to that
most sacred excellence of the Canonical Scriptures, even in
“ those of them in which the same truth is found, yet the
“ authority is far different. Therefore, in them, if any matters
“ should perchance be thought to be not agreeable to the truth,
“from their being understood differently from the sense in
“ which they are spoken, yet the reader or hearer has in such a
“ case an unfettered right of judgment to approve what shall
“ please him or disapprove what shall offend him; and there-
“ fore as to all things of this kind [1. e. that may be advanced
“ by these writers], unless they may be defended either by sure
grounds of reason, or from that canonical authority, so that it
may be demonstrated that what is there discussed or narrated
either certainly is, or might be, as there represented, he who
is not satisfied with what is said, or refuses to believe it, is not
blamed. But in that canonical pre-eminence of the Sacred
Scriptures, although only one Prophet, or Apostle, or Evan-
gelist, is declared to have laid down any point in his writings,
supposing it to have in reality the testimony of the Canon in
its favor, we must not doubt of its truth ; otherwise there will
be no writing by which the infirmity of human ignorance may be
ruled, if the salutary authority of the canonical books is either
wholly destroyed through contempt, or confounded by being
extended beyond its limits [1. e. when that authority is extended
“ to other works. ] 1 :
n
n
n
nn
x
nN
¢
n
{
“
€
n
1“ Quod genus litterarum non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi
libertate legendum. Cui tamen ne intercluderetur locus, et adimeretur posteris
ad questiones difficiles tractandas atque versandas lingue ac stili saluberrimus
labor, distincta est a posteriorum libris excellentia canonice auctoritatis veteris et
novi Testamenti, que Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones Epis-
coporum et propagationes Ecclesiarum tamquam in sede quadam sublimiter
constituta est, cuiserviat omnis fidelis et pius intellectus...... In opusculis autem
170 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
I ask the impartial reader, Is it possible that Augustine could
have spoken thus, if he had held that the consent of these writers
formed part,—and through the obscurity of Scripture a neces-
sary part,—of the Rule of faith ?
Again, when the Donatists objected to him the statements of
Cyprian, and of the Council held under him, he says,—‘ But
“who is ignorant, that the Holy Canonical Scripture of the
“ Old and New Testament is limited to certain bounds, and is so
“ far above all the later writings of bishops, that of it it cannot
“ be doubted or disputed, whether it is true or right, whatsoever
“ shall appear to be written in it ; but that, as to the writings of
“ bishops which either have been written or are being written
“ since the confirmation of the Canon, they may be found fault
“with, both by the wiser discourse of any one more skilful in
“ the matter, and by the weightier authority and more learned
“ wisdom of other bishops, and by councils ; and that local and
“ provincial councils yield without any doubt to the authority
“ of those plenary councils that are assembled together from the
“ whole Christian world; AND THAT AS TO THOSE VERY &CU-
“ MENICAL COUNCILS, THE FORMER ARE OFTEN CORRECTED BY
“ LATER, when experience opens what was closed, and brings
“ to light that which was hidden, without any swellings of
“ sacrilegious pride, without any exaltation of the neck of arro-
“ance, without any envious contentions, with holy humility,
“ with catholic peace, with Christian charity.” ἢ
posteriorum, que libris innumerabilibus continentur, sed nullo modo ille sacra-
tissime canonicarum Scripturarum excellentize cozquantur, etiam in quibuscumque
eorum invenitur eadem veritas, longe tamen est impar auctoritas. Itaque in eis,
si qua forte propterea dissonare putantur a vero, quia non ut dicta sunt intelli-
guntur, tamen liberum ibi habet lector auditorve judicium, quo vel approbet quod
placuerit, vel improbet quod offenderit; et ideo cuncta ejusmodi, nisi vel certa
ratione vel ex illa canonica authoritate defendantur, ut demonstretur sive omnino
ita esse, sive fieri potuisse quod vel disputatum ibi est, vel narratum, si cui
displicuerit, aut credere noluerit, non reprehenditur. In illa vero canonica emi-
nentia sacrarum litterarum etiamsi unus Propheta, seu Apostolus aut Evangelista
aliquid in suis litteris posuisse ipsa canonis confirmatione declaratur, non licet
dubitare quod verum sit: alioquin nulla erit pagina, qua humane imperitize
regatur infirmitas, si librorum canonicorum saluberrima auctoritas aut contemta
penitus aboletur aut interminata confunditur.” Ip. Contra Faust. lib. xi. c. 5.
vill. 221, 2.
1 “ Quis autem nesciat, sanctam Scripturam canonicam, tam veteris quam novi
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 171
Lastly, in reply to the Pelagians, on the important doctrine
of original sin, after having proved his view of the point in
question from the Holy Scriptures, he says,—“ But what shall I
“say of those interpreters of the divine Scriptures who have
“ flourished in the Catholic Church, how they have not at-
“ tempted to turn these testimonies to other senses, since they
“ stood firm in the antient and sound faith, and were not moved
“ by novel error. If I should wish to collect them, and make use
“ of their testimonies, it will be both too long atask, anv I sHALu
“ PERHAPS SEEM TO HAVE RELIED LESS THAN | OUGHT UPON
““ THE CANONICAL AUTHORITIES, FROM WHICH WE OUGHT NOT
“ TO ALLOW OUR ATTENTION TO BE WITHDRAWN.” !
So far is he from giving to those writers the place demanded
for them by the Tractators.
Before I pass on, I have only to remark, that as it respects
matters of faith, 1 know of no testimonies that can be produced
from Augustine that even give the least semblance of support to
the views of our opponents. The reader will consider, whether
the passages we have already adduced do not forbid the suppo-
sition, that any real support for their views could be found in
him. His sentiments as it respects the Rule of practice we
shall consider in the next Section of this Chapter.
Testamenti, certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episco-
pornm litteris ita preponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit,
utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episco-
porum autem litteras que post confirmatum canonem vel scripte sunt vel
scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in ea re peritioris,
et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque pruden-
tiam, et per concilia, licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum
est; et ipsa concilia que per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum
conciliorum auctoritati que fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano sine ullis ambagi-
bus cedere; ipsaque plenaria seepe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo expe-
rimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat, sine ullo
typho sacrileg superbiz, sine ulla inflata cervice arrogantiz, sine ulla contentione
livide invidiz, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum caritate Christiana.
Ip. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. ii. 6. 8. ix. 98.
1“ Quid antem dicam de ipsis divinarum Scripturarum tractatoribus qui in
catholica Ecclesia floruerunt, quomodo hee non in alios sensus conati sunt
vertere, quoniam stabiles erant in antiquissima et robustissima fide, non autem
novitio movebantur errore. Quos si colligere et eorum testimoniis uti velim,
et nimis longum erit, et de canonicis auctoritatibus, a quibus non debemus
averti, minus fortasse videbor preesumsisse quam debui.” Ip. De nupt. et concup.
lib, ii. c. 29. x. 328.
17 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Curysostom. (fl. a. 398.)
From Augustine let us pass on to the equally celebrated
Chrysostom. “ Let us, I beseech you,” says Chrysostom,
“ shut our ears against all such persons, and follow closely the
“ Rule (or, Canon) of the Holy Scripture.”’?
Again, anticipating the objection of a Pagan to become a
Christian, on account of the multitude of sects among Christians,
he says, —“ A Pagan comes and says, ‘ I desire to be a Christian,
“ but I know not to whom to attach myself. There is much
“ eontention and division among you, and much confusion.
«« What doctrine shall I choose? Which shall I prefer? Each
“one says, I speak the truth. Whom am I to believe, having
“ no knowledge at all in the Scriptures? And they both pro-
« duce the same [testimony].’ This, at least, is altogether in
“ our favor. For, if we said, that you must believe our reason-
“ ings, you might with reason be troubled; but if we say, that
“ you must believe the Scriptures, and they are simple and true,
“ it is easy for you to judge. If any one receives these, he is a
“ Christian ; if any one opposes them, he is far from the pale of
“ Christianity. What, therefore, if he should come and say
“that the Scripture says this or that, but thou speakest dif-
“ ferently ; and ye have interpreted them in quite another way,
“ distorting their meaning. Tell me, then, have you neither
“ understanding nor judgment ὃ ‘And how could I,’ he says,
“ “not knowing how to judge your matters? I desire to bea
“ scholar; but you make me already a master.’ If he should
“ say this, what shall we answer ?—how shall we persuade him ?
“ Lev US ASK HIM IF ALL THIS IS NOT A MERE EXCUSE AND
“ preTENcE.” And then, having added some further obser-
vations on the marks by which he might discern the true
Church, he adds,—“ But this is an excuse and pretence.”
1 Παρακαλῶ, πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις Tas ἀκοὰς ἀποτειχίσαντες, τῷ κανόνι τῆς ἁγίας
γραφῆς κατακολουθήσωμεν. CHRYSOSTOMI in Genes. hom. xiii. § 3. Op. ed. Bened.
Paris. 1718 et seq. tom. iv. p. 103.
3 Ἔρχεται Ἕλλην, καὶ λέγει, ὅτι βούλομαι γενέσθαι Χριστιανός" ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδα
τίνι προσθῶμαι: μάχη παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πολλὴ καὶ στάσις" πολὺς θόρυβος" ποῖον ἕλομαι
δόγμα; τί αἱρήσομαι; ἕκαστος λέγει, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἄληθεύω" τίνι πεισθῶ, μηδὲν ὅλως
εἰδὼς ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ; κἀκεῖνοι τὸ αὐτὸ προβάλλονται: πάνυγε τοῦτο ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.
εἰ μὲν γὰρ λογισμοῖς ἐλέγομεν πείθεσθαι, εἰκότως ἐθορύβου" εἰ δὲ ταῖς γραφαῖς
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 173
Again, commenting on 2 Tim. v. 16,17. < All Scripture is
** given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine,
*‘ for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
“that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished
“ unto all good works,” he says,— ‘For doctrine.’ If there
“is anything which it behoves us to learn or be ignorant of,
“ thence we shall know it. If it behoves us to reprove false
“ doctrine, thence also we shall knew it. If we need to be cor-
“rected and taught wisdom. For exhortation, for comfort, for
* correction, he says. That is if anything is deficient, and
* needs to be added. ‘That the man of God may be perfect.’
“ He says that the exhortations of Scripture were given for
“this purpose ; ‘that the man of God may be perfect’...
“ Instead of me, he says, you have the Scriptures. Jf you are
“ desirous of learning anything, you will be able to do so from
“them. And if he wrote these things to Timothy, who was
“ full of the Holy Spirit, how much more to us? ‘ Thoroughly
“ furnished to all good works.’ Not simply a partaker, he says,
“ but thoroughly and accurately furnished.” }
And in his Commentary on the fifth Psalm, he speaks of the
Scriptures as Christ’s Will, giving an account of the heavenly
inheritance, and how it is to be obtained, observing, that “ when
“ we shall have arrived at perfect manhood, and the measure of
“ our age, and passed to that life which is without change, he
λέγομεν πιστεύειν, αὗται δὲ ἁπλαῖ καὶ ἀληθεῖς, εὔκολόν σοι τὸ κρινόμενον" εἴ τις
ἐκείναις συμφωνεῖ, οὗτος Χριστιανός" εἴ τις μάχεται, οὗτος πόῤῥω τοῦ κανόνος
τούτου. Τί οὖν ἂν ἐκεῖνος ἐλθὼν εἴπῃ, τοῦτο ἔχειν τὴν γραφὴν, σὺ δὲ ἕτερον
λέγῃς, καὶ ἄλλως παρεξηγῆσθε τὰς γραφὰς τὰς διανοίας αὐτῶν ἕλκοντες ; σὺ οὖν
εἰπέ μοι, νοῦν οὐκ ἔχεις, οὐδὲ κρίσιν ; καὶ πῶς ἂν δυναίμην, φησὶ, μηδὲ εἰδὼς
κρίνειν τὰ ὑμέτερα; μαθητὴς βούλομαι γενέσθαι: σὺ δέ με ἤδη διδάσκαλον
ποιεῖς" ἂν ταῦτα λέγῃ, τί, φησιν, ἀποκρινόμεθα ; πῶς αὐτὸν πείσομεν ; ἐρωτήσωμεν,
εἰ μὴ σκῆψις ταῦτα καὶ mpdpacis...... ἀλλὰ σκῆψις τοῦτο καὶ πρόφασις. ID. In
Act. Apost. hom. 33. § 4. ix. 258, 9.
1 Πρὸς διδασκαλίαν" εἴ τι μαθεῖν, εἴ τι ἀγνοῆσαι χρὴ, ἐκεῖθεν εἰσόμεθα: εἰ ἐλέγξαι
τὰ ψευδῆ, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκεῖθεν" εἰ ἐπανορθωθῆναι καὶ σωφρονισθῆναι. πρὸς παράκλησιν,
πρὸς παραμυθίαν, φησὶ, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν" τουτέστι, εἴ τι λείπει, καὶ χρὴ προσ-
τεθῆναι" ἵνα ἄρτιος ἢ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος᾽ διὰ τοῦτο φησι, γέγονεν ἣ τῶν γραφῶν
παράκλησις, ἵνα ἄρτιος ἢ ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος-...... ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ, φησι, τὰς γραφὰς
ἔχεις" εἴ τι βούλει μαθεῖν, ἐκεῖθεν δυνήσῃ" εἰ δὲ Τιμοθέῳ ταῦτα ἔγραφε τῷ πνεύ-
ματος ἐμπεπλησμένῳ, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἡμῖν; πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένο-"
οὐχ ἁπλῶς μετέχων, φησὶν, ἀλλὰ μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας ἐξηρτισμένος. Τῇ. In 2 Tim.
v. 16,:17. hom. 9. ὃ 1. xi. 714, 15.
174 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ will then put us in possession of that inheritance. But in the
“ mean time he has made a Will and left us the Scriptures, and
“< told us what to do, in order to obtain the inheritance ; 50 that we
“ may not fail to obtain it, nor be disinherited.” ?
Other passages may be found in works going under the name
of Chrysostom, to the same effect; but I shall not here dwell
upon them, as they are of doubtful genuineness.”
Moreover, he bears witness to the completeness and perfec-
tion of Scripture as the Rule of faith. For he says that we have
in the Scriptures “ an exact measure, and index, and rule of all
things ;” adding, ‘‘ Wherefore I exhort and beseech all of you,
“ that, giving up all consideration as to what this or that person
“ thinks concerning these things, you would consult the Scrip-
“ tures respecting all these things; and having learnt the true
ἐς riches, let us follow after these things, that we may obtain
“ eternal blessings.” ὃ
And by “rule,” he means that which receives neither addition
nor diminution, as far as it is a rule; for he tells us, that “a
“rule receives neither addition nor diminution, otherwise it
ἐς ceases to be a rule.’’*
Again, he says,—“ Look not for another master ; thou hast the
“ oracles of God; no one teaches thee like them.... Ignorance
“ of the Scriptures is the cause of all evils.” ὅ
1 "Ἐπειδὰν εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον καὶ μέτρον ἡλικίας καταντήσωμεν, καὶ πρὸς τὸν
ἀκήρατον μεταστῶμεν βίον, τότε ἡμῖν ἐγχειρίζει τὸν κλῆρον ἐκεῖνον. Τέως δὲ
διέθετο, καὶ τὰ γράμματα ἡμῖν κατέλιπε, καὶ τίνα πράττοντες ἐπιτευξόμεθα τῆς
κληρονομίας εἶπεν, ὥστε μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν, μηδὲ ἀποκληρονόμους γενέσθαι. Ip. Expos.
in Ps. 5. § 1. v. 29.
2 See Homil. de Spir. 8. § 10. iii. 808. This homily is considered by
Photius a genuine work of Chrysostom ; and by Savile the production of some
learned contemporary of Chrysostom. See also Homil. in Ps. 95. prope jin.
ν. 636. This homily, however, is probably spurious.
3 Πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἄτοπον... .. ὑπὲρ πραγμάτων ψηφιζομένους, ἁπλῶς ταῖς ἑτέρων
παρασύρεσθαι δόξαις" καὶ ταῦτα ἀκριβῆ ζυγὸν ἁπάντων ἔχοντας, καὶ γνώμονα, καὶ
κανόνα, τῶν θείων νόμων τὴν ἀπόφασιν ; διὸ παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαι πάντων ὑμῶν,
ἀφέντες τί τῷ δεῖνι καὶ τῷ δεῖνι δοκεῖ περὶ τούτων, παρὰ τῶν γραφῶν ταῦτα
ἅπαντα πυνθάνεσθε, καὶ τὸν ἀληθῆ πλοῦτον μαθόντες, τοῦτων διώκωμεν, ἵνα καὶ
τῶν αἰωνίων ἐπιτύχωμεν ἀγαθῶν. Ip. In 2 Cor. hom. 13. fin. x. 536, 537.
4 Ὃ Κανὼν οὔτε πρόσθεσιν οὔτε ἀφαίρεσιν δέχεται, ἐπεὶ τὸ κανὼν εἶναι ἀπόλ-
Avot. Ip. In Phil. hom. 12. ὃ 2. xi. 293.
5 Μηδὲ περιμείνῃς ἕτερον διδάσκαλον" ἔχεις τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ" οὐδείς σε δι-
δάσκει ὡς ἐκεῖνα... .. τοῦτο πάντων αἴτιον τῶν κακῶν, τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι τὰς γραφάς.
Ip. In Coloss, hom. 9. ὃ 1. xi. 391.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 175
And in a work, which, if it be not Chrysostom’s, has been so
spoken of by Romanists themselves, as to make it require
no defence here, as a work of equal value as if it was—I mean,
the “ Imperfect work on Matthew”!—it is said, on the words,
« All things are ready, come unto the marriage,”—“ Whatever
“ is requisite for salvation, that is all fully to be found im the
“ Scriptures . . . In this feast there is nothing less than what
“ is necessary to the salvation of men.”?
I add below a reference to some other passages, which the
reader may consult on this point.*
And with respect to the doctrine of the consubstantiality of
the Son with the Father, he distinctly speaks of it as being
clearly and fully delivered in Scripture.*
So clear, indeed, is his testimony on this whole subject, that
even the Romanist Du Pin says,—* St. Chrysostom looks upon
“ the Holy Scripture as the ground and rule of all the truths of
“ religion.” 5
Further, Chrysostom distinctly places Scripture before us as
our proper guide to direct us in controversies of faith.
Thus, commenting on John x. 1, “ He that entereth not by
“ the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way,
1 Thus, Erasmus says, that though not Chrysostom’s, it was the work “ ho-
minis eruditi et facundi et in divinis literis sic exercitati ut mea quidem sen-
tentia hac in parte non cedat Chrysostomo.” Bellarmine says, “ credibile esse
authorem fuisse catholicum,’’ and calls it a work “doctum et minime sper-
nendum.” (De Script. Eccles. ad ann. 398.) Sixtus Senensis says, that it
was “ tot seeculis communi Ecclesia assensu comprobatum,” and adduces many
reasons for supposing it to be a genuine work of Chrysostom; to which opinion
he himself is evidently inclined ; though he says that the opinions of critics are
diverse on the subject. (See his Bibl. Sanct.) The two latter, however, hold it
to have been interpolated by heretics.
2 « Quidquid queritur ad salutem, totum jam adimpletum est in Scripturis.
.... Nihil minus est in hoe convivio quam quod necessarium habet salus humana.”
Opus Imperf. in Matth. hom. 41. vi. elxxiv. App.
3 See Comment. in Act. hom. 29. § 4. ix. 231. Comment. in Heb. hom. 8.
§ 4. xii. 89. Also in the homily De Spir. S., written, as Savile supposes, by
some learned contemporary of Chrysostom, it is said,—& od γέγραπται, οὐ δεῖ
φρονεῖν. tom. iii. p. 798. And in the homily De Pseudo-Prophetis, which,
however, the Benedictines reckon spurious, Οὐδὲν ἔλειπεν, οὐδὲ παρεσιώπησε
τῶν συμφερόντων ἡμῖν ἣ θεία γραφή. viii. App. 73.
4 See his Homil. de Consubstant. § 2. tom. i. pp. 502, 8.
5 Du Pu’s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 320. Dublin edit.
176 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“the same is a thief and a robber;” he says, ‘“ Observe
“ the marks of the thief; first, that he enters not with confi-
“ dence; secondly, that he enters not by the Scriptures,—for this
“is the meaning of not entering by ¢he door. And he here
“ alludes to both those who were before him, and those who
ἐς were to come after him; both antichrist and false Christs ;
“ both Judas and Theudas, and all others of the same kind.
“ But he very properly called the Scriptures the door, for they
“ Jead us to God, and open to us the knowledge of divine things ;
“ they make the sheep ; they guard them, and suffer not the wolves
“ privily to enter in. For as a secure door, so they prevent the
“ entrance of heretics, affording us a place of safety for all things
““ we could desire, and not suffermg us to wander; and if we
“do not open it, we shall not be easily taken captive by our
“enemies. By it we shall know in all cases both those that are
“ sheep, and those that are not.’
And lastly, the reader will not fail to recollect the remarkable
passage quoted in a previous page” from the “ Imperfect work
on Matthew,” the author of which, speaking of the times of
Antichrist, says, that “at that time there can be no proof of
“ true Christianity, nor any other refuge for Christians, wishing
“to know the true faith, but the divine Scriptures,” and no
way “to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, but only
through the Scriptures ;” because those who followed Anti-
christ, would have all the external appearances of the Christian
Church as to Churches, the Scriptures, bishops, &c.; and that
“ the Lord, knowing that such a confusion of things would take
“ place in the last days, commands, on that account, that the
1 "Opa τὰ δείγματα τοῦ λῃστοῦ: πρῶτον, ὅτι οὐ παῤῥησίᾳ εἰσέρχεται" δεύτερον,
ὅτι οὐ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ μὴ διὰ τῆς Ovpas: ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ τοὺς
πρὸ αὐτοῦ αἰνίττεται, καὶ τοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐσομένους" τόν τε ἀντίχριστον, καὶ τοὺς
ψευδοχρίστους" τόν τε Ἰούδαν καὶ Θευδᾶν, καὶ εἴ τινες ἕτεροι τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν.
Εἰκότως δὲ θύραν τὰς γραφὰς ἐκάλεσεν" αὗται γὰρ ἡμᾶς προσάγουσι τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ
τὴν θεογνωσίαν ἀνοίγουσιν" αὗται πρόβατα ποιοῦσιν" αὗται φυλάττουσι, καὶ τοὺς
λύκους οὐκ ἀφιᾶσιν ἐπεισελθεῖν. Καθάπερ γάρ τις θύρα ἀσφαλὴς, οὕτως ἀπο-
κλείει τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τὴν εἴσοδον, ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ καθιστῶσα ἡμᾶς περὶ ὧν ἂν Bov-
λώμεθα πάντων, καὶ οὐκ ἐῶσα πλανᾶσθαι: κἂν μὴ παραλύσωμεν αὐτὴν, οὐκ ἐσόμεθα
εὐχείρωτοι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς. Διὰ ταύτης καὶ τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ τοὺς οὐ ποιμένας
εἰσόμεθα ἅπαντας. Ip. In Johann. hom. 59, (al. 58.) § 2. viii. 346.
2. See above vol. ii. pp. 342, 343.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 177
““ Christians who are in Christianity, and desirous of availing
“ themselves of the strength of the true faith, should betake
“ themselves to nothing else but the Scriptures. Otherwise if
“ they shall look to other things, they shall stumble and perish,
“ not understanding which is the true Church. And, through
“ this, they shall fall upon the abomination of desolation, which
“ standeth in the holy places of the Church.” ἢ
Antichrist, let us observe, would use the same divine Scrip-
tures; but, notwithstanding that, the only safe guide to those
who wished to know the true faith and the true Church, would
be those very Scriptures; so little did he think, that, because
Antichrist perverted and misused them, therefore they were not
fit and sufficient to sit as judge upon his claims and errors, and
decide the controversy between truth and falsehood.
What, then, does Bellarmine, who acknowledges the value of
the book itself, say to this? Why, forsooth, all these remarks
are the interpolation of some Arian heretic! Upon which
Bishop Taylor observes, “ Bellarmine very learnedly says (De
“Ὑ Ὁ. iv. 11.), that these words were put into this book by
“the Arians, but because he offers at no pretence of reason
“for any such interpolation, and it being without cause to
“ suspect it, though the author of it had been an Arian, because
“ the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the
“ point of the Scripture’s sufficiency, I look upon this as a pitiful
“ shift of a man that resolved to say anything rather than con-
“ fess his error.” *
And in the same way Sextus Senensis would get rid of the
passage previously quoted from this work,’ as well as others.
But, says Bishop Taylor, “ When they cannot show, by any
“ probable argument, that any heretics have interpolated these
“ words, and that these are so agreeing to other words of St.
“ Chrysostom, spoken in his unquestioned works, he shows himself
“ and his party greatly pinched ; and for no other reason rejects
Lb;
2 ΒΡ. Taytor’s Dissuas. from Popery, Pt. 2. Works, vol. x. p. 405. And see
his Rule of Conscience, bk. 2, c. 3. rule 14. Works, xiii, 103, 4. And Bp.
Morton’s Cath. App. pp. 313, 314.
3 See p. 175 above.
VOL. III. N
178 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“the words, but because they make against him; which is a
“« plain self-conyiction and self-condemnation.” ἢ
There are two passages, however, connected with this subject,
in the works of Chrysostom, which require explanation.
The first is in his Commentary on the Second Epistle to
the Thessalonians, where, explaining the words, “ Therefore,
* brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have
“ received, whether by word or our epistle” (ii. 15.), he says,—
* Hence it is evident, that they [the Apostles] did not deliver
** all things by letter, but many things also orally ; but both the
“one and the other are equally worthy of belief; let us, then,
* esteem also the Tradition of the Church to be worthy of
* belief ; it is a Tradition ; seek no further.’??
But, to know the mind of Chrysostom, this passage must be
compared with others in him upon the same subject ; and when
we consider it in connexion with those which we have quoted
aboye, it seems evident, that these oral traditions, to which
Chrysostom refers, were not points of faith, but rites and
customs of the Church ; for, as to the former, he distinctly sends
us to Scripture as our Rule, and a perfect Rule. As it respects
the latter, I willingly admit, that he and other Fathers of the
Church held, that many of the rites and customs of the Church,
not mentioned in Scripture, might be considered as having been
derived from Apostolical ordinance or sanction ; and that as it
concerned those which the Church used and celebrated under
that name, it was desirable and proper for individuals to rest
satisfied, and not trouble the Church by curious inquiries into
the matter; a judgment which, when restrained within its
proper bounds, has good grounds to rest upon.
And thus speaks the Tractators’ own witness, Bishop Morton,
on the passage,—“ If by these words, ‘as worthy of credit,’ be
“ meant the traditions ceremonial, in this sense we must believe,
“ certainly, that the ceremonies ordained by the Apostles were
“just and lawful, albeit (as even our adversaries do teach)
1 ΒΡ, Taytor’s Diss. from Popery, Pt. 2. Works, x. 405.
2> = - :
Ἐντεῦθεν δῆλον ὅτι οὐ πάντα δ᾽ ἐπιστολῆς παρεδίδοσαν, ἀλλὰ πολλὰ καὶ
5 i τι cA A ~ -
aypadws: ὁμοίως δὲ κἀκεῖνα καὶ ταῦτά ἐστιν ἀξιόπιστά" ὥστε καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν
τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀξιόπιστον ἡγώμεθα: παράδοσίς ἐστι, μηδὲν πλέον ζήτει. Ip. In
2 Thess. ii. 15. hom. 4. ὃ 2. xi, 582.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 179
“ alterable : so this sentence doth not differ from the profession
“ of Protestants. But if the Romanists will have it understood
“ of doctrinal points of faith, which are absolutely necessary
“ unto salvation, as though some such article were not recorded
“ in Scriptures, then was it not unjustly to be censured a speech
“ unfitting the golden mouth of Chrysostome; because so S.
“ Chrysostome should contradict himself in many places, not
“ only of his supposed works, as hath been showed, in so plain
“ sort justifying our defence of only Scripture, that their Church
“ hath, therefore, in their new editions of Chrysostome, wiped
“that sentence out, [alluding to the Opus Imp. in Matth.] ;
“ but also in his unquestionable works, yea, even in his Homily
“ next going before the objected testimony, where, exhorting
* all men to be exercised in reading the Scriptures, ‘ All things,’
* saith he, ‘ which are necessary, are manifest’.... [he proceeds
* to quote the Exposition on Ps. 95, which I omit as doubtful]
«.... For the which cause he calleth the sacred Scriptures
“ (In 2 Cor. hom. 13.) ‘A most exact balance, square, and rule
“of divine laws.’ Wherein Chrysostome is irreconcileably
“ contrary unto the Romanists, who, for the defence of unwritten
* traditions, do esteem of Scripture, not as of a most exact, but
“ only as of a part of a rule of faith.” +
The other passage occurs in his Commentary on the Epistle
to the Philippians, and stands thus,—“ These things were not
“ vainly instituted by the Apostles, namely, that at the celebra-
tion of the tremendous mysteries [1. 6. the Eucharist] a re-
“ membrance should be made of the departed.” *
But here the tradition spoken of is clearly a mere custom,
namely, that a remembrance should be made of the departed
at the celebration of the Eucharist ; and such a remembrance
may be made (as it is in our own Service) without its involving
any doctrine of any kind whatsoever; and the words with
which Chrysostom follows up the remark, namely, “ they
knew that much gain and much profit would hence accrue
1 ΒΡ. Morton’s Cath. App. ii. 25. 4. p. 315.
3 Οὐκ εἰκῇ ταῦτα ἐνομοθετήθη ὑπὺ τῶν ἀποστόλων, τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν φρικτῶν μυστη-
ρίων μνήμην γίνεσθαι τῶν ἀπελθόντων. ID. In Phil. i. 24. Hom. 8. § 4. xi. 217.
Ν 2
΄
180 THE DOCTRINE ‘OF THE FATHERS
to them,”! contain merely an expression of Chrysostom’s own
sentiments as to the good to be expected from such a remem-
brance of them.
I will only add, that if our opponents wish to avail them-
selves of this last remark, as showing that Chrysostom held
their views in another point, they had better first read the
whole homily; for they will find, that it not only advocates
our praying for the faithful, but for the dead generally, including
expressly those who have died impenitent and unbelievers, to
whom he thinks that our prayers may bring some benefit.”
Before I pass on, however, I must notice a passage quoted
by the author of Tract 34 from the works of Chrysostom, and
which forms another striking instance how little the Tractators’
extracts from the Fathers are to be depended upon. The pas-
sage, as given by the Tractator, is this,—‘‘He who is duly
** strengthened in faith, does not go so far as to require reason
“and cause for what is enjoined, but is satisfied with the tradi-
“ tion alone.” The italics are the Tractator’s. This passage he
quotes as his motto ; and then proceeds, in his Tract, to incul-
cate the necessity of observing certain rites and customs of the
early Church as Apostolical traditions. Now this is a direct
misapplication of the words of Chrysostom, which no reader, who
had attended to the context, could have made. The words of
Chrysostom are these. They are on those words of the Apostle,
“T praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things,
and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor.
xi. 2.) And he says,—“ Therefore he then delivered many
“things not in writing, which also he frequently elsewhere
“states; but he then delivered them only, but now he gives the
“reason. For thus he rendered these his hearers more confi-
“dent, and put down the haughtiness of those who opposed
“them. He proceeds not to say, ye have obeyed, but others
“have disobeyed ; but indirectly, through the instruction he
“ gives, he hints this in what follows, speaking thus, —‘I would
“ have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the
1 Ἴσασιν αὐτοῖς πολὺ κέρδος γινόμενον, πολλὴν τὴν ὠφέλειαν. Ib.
3 Κλαίωμεν οὖν τούτους, βοηθῶμεν αὐτοῖς κατὰ δύναμιν, ἐπινοήσωμεν αὐτοῖς
τινα βοήθειαν, μικρὰν μὲν, βοηθεῖν δὲ ὅμως δυναμένην. Ib, And see the whole
of § 4. pp. 216—18,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 181
“ head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.’
“ Here the reason is given. And he gives this, that he may
“ make the weaker more attentive. The faithful and confirmed
[disciple] therefore, as is right, needs neither reason nor
“ cause for the things that may be commanded, but is satisfied
“ with the delivery alone. But the weak, when he knows also
“ the cause, then holds what was said with greater earnestness,
“ and obeys with greater alacrity.’’}
I need not add one word to show the reader, how completely
the passage quoted by the Tractator has been perverted by him
from its true meaning.
Cyrit or ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 412.)
I proceed to Cyril of Alexandria.
“That which the divine Scripture hath not spoken, how,” he
asks, “shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities ?”’”
Again, commenting on 1 Cor. 1. 21., he says,— By the
* foolishness of preaching he means the plainness of the phra-
“ seology of the inspired Scripture. Therefore, leaving off toil-
“ ing in vain and reaping no fruit, and enduring to spend your
.“]abors upon things that are unprofitable, hear me rather,
“ and eat that which is good, namely, through the Evangelical
* proclamations, in which, saith he, your soul would abundantly
“ delight, and be nourished. There is the true knowledge of
““ God as he is, and instruction as to all virtue and propriety of
“ conduct, becoming saints; and wisdom, such as with won-
1 “Apa καὶ ἀγράφως πολλὰ παρεδίδου τότε, ὃ Kal ἀλλαχοῦ πολλαχοῦ δηλοῖ. ᾿Αλλὰ
τότε μὲν παρέδωκε μόνον, νῦν δὲ καὶ αἰτιολογίαν τίθησιν. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τούτους ἰσχυ-
ροτέρους ἐποίει τοὺς ἀκούοντας, καὶ ἐκείνων κατέσπα τὸ φύσημα τῶν ἐναντιουμένων.
Εἶτα οὐ λέγει ὅτι ὑμεῖς μὲν ὑπηκούσατε, ἕτεροι δὲ παρήκουσαν, ἀλλὰ ἀνυπόπτως
ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτὸ αἰνίττεται διὰ τῶν ἑξῆς, οὕτω λέγων: θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι,
κι τ. Δ. Ἡ μὲν αἰτιολογία αὕτη. Τίθησι δὲ αὐτὴν, τοὺς ἀσθενεστέρους προσεκ-
τικωτέρους ποιῶν. Ὁ μὲν οὖν πιστὸς, ὧς χρὴ, καὶ ἐῤῥωμένος οὐδὲ δεῖται λόγου
οὐδὲ αἰτίας, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν ἐπιταχθῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρκεῖται τῇ παραδόσει μόνῃ. ‘O δὲ ἄσθε-
νέστερος, ὅταν καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν μάθῃ, τότε καὶ μετὰ πλείονος τῆς σπουδῆς κατέχει
τὸ λεχθὲν, καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς ὑπακούει τῆς προθυμίας. ΤΡ. In 1 Cor. hom. 36. ὃ 1.
x. 228, 9.
2*O yap οὐκ εἴρηκεν ἣ θεία γραφὴ, τίνα δὴ τρόπον παραδεξόμεθα, καὶ ἐν τοῖς
ἀληθῶς ἔχουσι καταλογιούμεθα; CYRILE. ALEX. Glaphyr. in Genes. lib. ii.
Op. ed. Aubert. Lutet. 1638. tom. i. Pt. i. p. 29.
182 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ derful exactness rightly discerns everything that ought to be
“ done, and perfectly fits the mind for activity in good works.”?}
Again; “ We teach in the Churches, adducing the doctrines
“ taught in the inspired Scripture, bringing the Evangelical and
“ Apostolical word before our hearers as a kind of heavenly
* food.’”?2
Again, in his Third Dialogue respecting the Holy Trinity,
one of the speakers observes, “ To whom that is wise, is it not
“ evident, that you, O my friend, will adduce vain words to us,
“and heap up a cold and useless mass of notions, unless you
“should prove to us, that the volumes of the sacred writers
“agree with what you have spoken? For we shall not follow
“ those who desire and are accustomed to speak from their own
“imaginations alone, but those who speak from the mouth of the
“ Lord, according to that which is written ;” to which the other
speaker replies, “‘ You speak rightly. Therefore the divine David
declared,” &e.8
1 Μωρίαν δὲ τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν κοινότητα τῆς λέξεως τῆς ἐνούσης TH θεο-
πνεύστῳ γραφῇ, φησίν. ᾿Αφέντες οὖν τὸ εἰκῆ πονεῖν, καὶ ἀκαρπίαν συλλέγειν, καὶ
δαπανᾷν ἀνέχεσθαι πόνους ἐπ᾿ ἀνωφελέσι πράγμασι, μᾶλλον ἀκούσατέ μου, καὶ
φάγεσθε ἀγαθὰ, τὰ διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν κηρυγμάτων δηλονότι, οἷς δὴ καὶ περιτ-
τῶς, φησὶν, ἐντρυφήσειεν ἣ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν" ἐκεῖ γνῶσις ἀληθὴς τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν Θεοῦ,
καὶ ἀρετῆς ἁπάσης, καὶ ἀγιοπρεποῦς εὐκοσμίας μάθημα, καὶ σύνεσις, θαυμαστῶς
ἕκαστα τῶν πρακτέων ὀρθῶς διακρίνοντα, [διακρίνουσα] καὶ τεχνίτην εἰς ayaoup-
γίαν ἀποτελοῦσα τὸν νοῦν, κι τ. A. Ip. Comment. in Is. lib. ν. tom. ii. Op. tom. ii.
Ρ. 774.
2 Διδάσκομεν yap ἐν ἐκκλησίαις τὰ διὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς παρακομίζοντες
δόγματα, καὶ ὥσπερ τινὰ τροφὴν πνευματικὴν τὸν εὐαγγελικόν τε καὶ ἀποστολικὸν
παρατιθέντες λόγον. Ip. Comment. in Johann. Ἐν. lib. vi. Op. tom. iv. p. 638.
3A. Kal τίνι τῶν εὖ φρονούντων ἀσυμφανὲς, ὡς εἰκαίους ἡμῖν, ὦ φιλότης, ἐπαν-
τλήσεις λόγους, ψυχρὰν δὲ καὶ ἄχρηστον ἐννοιῶν ἐπισωρεύσεις πληθὺν, εἰ μὴ
συνηχούσας οἷς ἔφης τὰς τῶν ἁγίων ἡμῖν ἐπιδείξαις συγγραφὰς ; ἑψόμεθα γὰρ οὐχὶ
τοῖς ἐθελουσί τε καὶ εἰωθόσι τὰ ἀπὸ μόνης τῆς σφῶν αὐτῶν ἐρεύγεσθαι διανοίας,
ἀλλὰ τοῖς λαλοῦσιν ἀπὸ στόματος Κύριου, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον. B. Εὖ λέγεις"
οὐκοῦν 6 μὲν θεῖος, φησὶν, ὕμνησέ που Δαβὶδ, x: τ. A. Ip. DeS. Trin. Dial. 3. tom.
v. P. 1. p. 477. The phrase τῶν ἁγίων is frequently used by Cyril for the in-
spired writers. As,—‘H οὐ διεπύθου τῶν ἁγίων ἡμῖν ἀνακεκραγότων περὶ Θεοῦ, πῆ
μὲν, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν 6 νομοθέτης καὶ κριτὴς, πῆ δὲ αὖ, ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν ; Dial. 8.
ib. p. 476. And again; Β. ἄρα ἂν ἔχοις εἰπεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων
tis ἂν γένοιτο τῶν τοιούτων ἣ πίστις ; A. Καίτοι βραχὺς κομιδῆ δαπανηθήσεται
πόνος, συναγείροντί σοι τὰς τῶν ἁγίων φωνάς. Ἐφεσίοις μὲν γὰρ ἐπιστέλλων ὃ
Παῦλος, Kk. τ. X. Dial. 6. ib. p. 603. Another instance occurs in the passage
next but one to this below. And so when drawing a distinction between the
Old and New Testament writers, he calls the former τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων ἁγίων.
Dial. 7. ib. p. 642. The phrase might perhaps be taken from 2 Pet. i. 21.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 183
And in the next Dialogue, the same speaker remarks,—
“ It is best not to love to be moved by the bold assertions of
* others, since they carry us away to incorrect views, but to
“ make the words of the inspired writers the correct and exact rule
“ of faith. For, it is but right, that we should assent to them
“ yather than others, and say, ‘ It is not ye that speak, but the
“Spirit of your Father that speaks in you;’” to which the
other replies, “ You have spoken most correctly.”
And his references to Scripture and Scripture only, as
the ground for faith in the doctrines he advanced, are con-
stant.?
Again ; he says,—‘ And first of all we may say to these
*‘ visionaries, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the
“ great mystery of godliness, that is, Christ, who was manifested
“in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached
“ among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
“ glory. But I think that our opponents ought either to pass
** condemnation upon those of old, and accuse the teachers of
“the world, to whom Christ himself said, ‘Go and teach all
“ nations,’ of bearing false witness ; or if they shrink from doing
* this, to embrace the orthodox doctrine respecting Christ, and
“ having bid farewell to their ignorant conceits, to hold firmly to
1 A. “Apiorov οὖν, ὦ Ἑ, ρμεία, τὸ μὴ ταῖς ἑτέρων ἀθυροστομίαις ἂναπτοεῖσθαι
φιλεῖν, ἐπείτοι πρὸς νοῦν ἡμᾶς τὸν ἀδόκιμον ἀποφέρουσι, πίστεως δὲ κανόνα τὸν
εὐθυτενῆ τε καὶ ἀδιάστροφον, τοὺς τῶν θεηγόρων ποιεῖσθαι λόγους' πρέποι γὰρ ἂν,
οὐχ ἑτέροις μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς, ἢ ἐκείνοις αὐτοῖς ἐπικροτεῖν τε καὶ λέγειν, οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ
οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑμῶν τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν. B. ᾿Ορθότατα
ἔφης. Ip. De S. Trin. Dial. 4. ib. », ὅ04. The phrase τῶν θεηγόρων is another
phrase not unfrequently used by Cyril for the inspired writers. As for in-
stance,—‘ A. Προσαναπυθέσθαι δέ σου βουλοίμην ἂν τόδε, πότερα τὰς τῶν θεηγό-
ρων φωνὰς .....- ποιήσονται παρουδέν; Β. ᾿Αψευδεῖν ἐροῦσιν, οἶμαί που. Α.
Γράφει τοίνυν ὁ ἱερώτατός τε καὶ πανάριστος Παῦλος, κι τ. A. Dial. 5. p. 546.
And again with τῶν ἁγίων in the following passage—A. Καὶ μὴν ἴσθι τοι πεφρο-
νηκὼς οὐχ ἕτερόν τι, παρὰ τὸ τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ θεηγόροις δοκοῦν, οἱ τὸν περὶ τούτων
ἡμῖν παρέδοσάν τε καὶ διεσάφησαν λόγον. ὋὉ μὲν γὰρ θεσπέσιος Iwdvyns......
Παῦλος δὲ.. .. φησὶν, κιτ. Χ. De 5, Trin. Dial. 4. ib. p. 519.
3.Α. Ἰτέον δὴ οὖν ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ἣ τάχος τὴν ἁγίαν γραφὴν, κι τι A. Dial. 2. ib.
p- 450. Again ;—B. Καὶ τίς ἂν γένοιτο τούτων ἣ πίστις ; A. Τὸ γράμμα τὸ
ἱερὸν, 7 θεόπνευστος γραφὴ σαφῶς καὶ ἠκριβωμένως ἑνοῦσα Θεῷ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ.
Dial. 7. p. 641. And again ;—A. Φέρε τὴν θείαν τε καὶ ἱερὰν πολυπραγμονοῦντες
γραφὴν, καταθρήσωμεν ax αὐτῆς τὸ ζητούμενον. Quod unus sit Christus,
Dialog. ib. p. 731.
184 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ the sacred Scriptures, and following the right path of the sacred
“© writers, go straight to the truth itself.” }
Again; “But if, to persons in such a state of mind, it is
“ necessary to apply the rein, would it not be most absurd to be
“ silent, and not to instil into your pious ears the knowledge of
“ the Holy Scriptures, as a sweet and life-giving fountain, which
“ God long ago promised us; saying, by the voice of Isaiah,
““ «Ὑς shall draw water with joy out of the wells of salvation.’
“ But ‘the wells of salvation, we interpret as meaning the holy
“ prophets, evangelists, and apostles, who pour upon the world
“the supernal, and heavenly, and salutary word; the Holy
“ Spirit supplying it to them; and thus fill with joy the whole
“ world. Come, therefore, let us apply our mind to those things
“ that lie in the depths of that spiritual teaching, and thence
“ draw the discovery of the truth.”? And further on in the same
treatise ; “Since it is necessary that we should follow the sacred
“ Scriptures, in nothing going beyond what they sanction, let us
“ proceed to mention, how God the Father is said to crown the
“ Son with glory.’
1 Φέρε λέγωμεν, Kal πρό ye τῶν ἄλλων τοῖς δοκήταις' πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἶδοτες τὰς
γραφὰς, μήτε τὴν τὸ μέγα τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, τουτέστι Χριστόν" ὃς ἐφανε-
ρώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, x. τ. A. (1 Tim. iii. 16.) Δεῖν δὲ, οἶμαι, τοὺς δι’ ἐναντίας, ἢ ψῆφον
> I 4 > ΄ ~ , > ”~ ‘A ~ > ’
ἐπάγειν τὴν αἰσχίω τοῖς πάλαι, καὶ ψευδηγόρους ἀποκαλεῖν τοὺς Tis οἰκουμένηΞ
‘\ ἢν > » / , J >»
μυσταγωγοὺς, ois αὐτὸς ἔφη Χριστὸ" πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἢ
εἴπερ τοῦτο καταπεφρίκασι δρᾷν, ὀρθὰ μὲν ἑλέσθαι φρονεῖν τὰ ἐπὶ Χριστῷ. φρά-
σαντας δὲ τὸ ἐῤῥῶσθαι δεῖν ταῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν ἀμαθίαις, ἀπρὶξ μὲν ἔχεσθαι τῶν
ε ~ , \ 13 ~ a ε , ͵ 2 > 7
ἱερῶν γραμμάτων' τὴν δὲ ἀπλανῆ τῶν ἁγίων διάγοντας τρίβον, ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν ἰέναι τὴν
ἀλήθειαν. Ip. De recta fide ad Theodos. Op. tom. v. P. 2. p.6. This passage,
with much more of the context, is also to be found word for word in his treatise,
De incarn. Unigen. Dial. tom. v. P. 1. pp. 680, 1.
2 Ei δὲ καὶ τοῖς οὕτως ἔχουσι φρενὺς προσβάλλειν ἀναγκαῖον, πῶς οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο
τῶν ἄγαν σφαλερωτάτων τὸ ἑλέσθαι σιγὴν, καὶ μὴ ταῖς εὐσεβέσιν ὑμῶν ἀκοαῖς
ἐνιέναι πλειστάκις, καθάπερ τι νᾶμα γλυκὺ καὶ ζωοποιὸν τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων τὴν
νῶσιν, ὅπερ ἡμῖν καὶ πάλαι Θεὸς ὑπισχνεῖτο, λέγων διὰ φωνῆς Ἡσαίου: Καὶ
ἀντλήσατε ὕδωρ μετ᾽ εὐφροσύνης ἐκ τῶν πηγῶν τοῦ σωτηρίου. Σωτηρίου δὲ
πηγὰς εἶναι φαμὲν, τοὺς ἁγίους προφήτας, εὐαγγελιστάς τε καὶ ἀποστόλους, of τὸν
ἄνωθεν, καὶ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ σωτήριον τῷ κοσμῳ βρύουσι λόγον, χορηγοῦντος αὐτοῖς
τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἅπασάν τε οὕτω κατευφραίνουσι τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν. Φέρε
΄ ~ > x 7 - > > “΄, 3 ~ ’, ΄“- ~ > ,
τοίνυν, τοῖς eis τὰ βάθη τῶν Tap αὐτοῦ ἐννοιῶν καθιέντες τὸν νοῦν, τῆς ἀληθείας THY
εὕρεσιν ἐκεῖθεν ἀντλήσωμεν. Ip. De recta fide ad Reg. lib. ii. init. tom. v. P. 2.
p- 128.
3 Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἕπεσθαι γράμμασιν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμᾶς, οὐδαμοῦ παρεκτρέ-
χοντας τὸ αὐτοῖς δοκοῦν, φέρε λέγωμεν, τίνα δὴ τρόπον ὃ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ δόξῃ
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 185
Again, in his Letter to Euoptius, he says,—“ It behoved him,
“being well versed in the inspired Scriptures, if it was alto-
“ gether his purpose to enter into a discussion with us respecting
“ the divine mysteries, to refer only to the sacred Scriptures ; and
“thus to compose his exposition in a spirit of piety, and not
bring forward against us old and putrid fables.”?
Still more strongly, in his Treatise on the Holy Trinity, he
remarks, “ All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us
“by the Law, and Prophets, and Apostles, we receive, and
“ acknowledge, and confess; and beyond these, we seek not to
“know anything. For it is impossible for us to say, or at
“all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been
divinely declared by the divine oracles of the Old and New
“« Testament.”*
And as it respects in particular the doctrine of the consubstan-
tiality of the Son with the Father, and even the phrase itself,
he says,—“ So that if any one should say, that the Son is of
‘the same nature, and consubstantial with the Father, he
““ would not be considered by us as having introduced any new
“ and unusual phraseology ; but he will be using a word that
“has, so to speak, the chief seat in the inspired Scripture.” ὃ
By these statements, then, we must judge of the meaning of
passages in which he speaks of following the doctrines of the
Church or the Fathers. There are no doubt several passages
of that kind in his writings. But they contain nothing to show,
λέγεται στεφανοῦν τὸν υἱόν" οὐκοῦν αὐτός που φησὶν 6 μακάριος Παῦλος, κ. τ. A.
Ip. ib. p. 168.
1 Ἔδει μὲν οὖν αὐτὸν ταῖς θεοπνεύστοις ἐνησκημένον γραφαῖς, εἴπερ ἦν ὅλως
σκοπὸ αὐτῷ, τοὺς περὶ τῶν θείων ἡμῖν μυστηρίων ποιεῖσθαι λόγους, τῶν ἱερῶν γραμ-
μάτων διαμεμνῆσθαι μόνον, ἐξυφαίνειν τε οὕτως ἁγίοπρεπῶς τὴν ἀφήγησιν, καὶ μὴ
μύθους ἡμῖν ἀρχαίους καὶ ὀδωδότας παρακομίζειν εἰς μέσον. ID. Epist.ad Euoptium,
prefix. tract. Pro xii. capit. adv. Theodoret. tom. vi. Pt. 1. p. 201.
2 Πάντα τοίνυν τὰ παραδεδομένα ἡμῖν διά τε νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ ἂπο-
στόλων δεχόμεθα καὶ γινώσκομεν καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν, οὐδὲν περαιτέρω τούτων ἐπιζη-
τοῦντες. ᾿Αδύνατον γὰρ παρὰ τὰ θειωδῶς ὑπὸ τῶν θείων λογίων τῆς τε παλαιᾶς
καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης ἡμῖν εἰρημένα εἰπεῖν τί περὶ Θεοῦ, ἢ ὅλως ἐννοῆσαι. ID. DeSS.
Trinit. c. 1. tom. vi. Pt. 8. p. 2.
3"Qore εἰ καί τις ὁμοφυᾶ τε Kal ὁμοούσιον εἶναι λέγοι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Tidy, οὐκ
ἀσύνηθές τι κεκαινουργηκὼς ὡς ἐν ὀνομάτων θέσει νοοῖτ᾽ ἂν ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾽, ἵν οὕτως
εἴπωμεν, τὰς πρώτας ἕδρας ἐχούσῃ παρά γε τῇ θεοπνεύστῳ γραφῇ, τῇ τοιᾷδε λέξει
χρήσεται. Ip. De SS. Trin. Dial. 1. tom. v. Pt. 1. p. 392.
4 See Ep. 4. ad Nestorium, tom, v. P. 2. diy. 3. p. 22; Ep. 9. ad Ceelestin. ib.
pp. 36, 7; Ep. ad Successum, ib. p. 135. De fest. paschal, hom, 8, ib, div. 2. p. 94.
186 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
that Cyril held what our opponents or the Romanists contend
for, namely, that the tradition of the Fathers is a divine in-
formant, a part of the Rule of faith, or has any authority over
the conscience. Those who belong to any Church, and conse-
quently consider that the doctrines of that Church are orthodox,
may, and do frequently exhort those who may be in an unsettled
state of mind as to the faith, to adhere to the doctrines which
the Formularies and great divines of that Church have laid down
respecting the faith. But they do this, not from the supposition
that such statements have any intrinsic authority over them, but
only from a conviction of their truth and consonancy with Scrip-
ture. So did the Fathers refer to what they considered the
Church and her divines. For, it is evident, that if they had
held the views of the Tractators or the Romanists, they could
not have used the language we have quoted from them, but
would, like the modern upholders of Tradition, have distinctly
spoken of it as part of the Rule of faith.
Bearing this in mind, we may easily explain the passages that
are often quoted against us on this subject. The strongest
passage that I know of in Cyril, is that in which, quoting those
words of St. Paul to Timothy, “Continue thou in the things
which thou hast learned,” he takes occasion thus to exhort those
to whom he was writing,—“ Holding the faith in simplicity of
“‘ mind, and laying up the tradition (or, teaching) of the Church
*‘as a treasure in the inmost recesses of the heart, hold the
“ doctrines that are pleasing to God.”! Here “the tradition
of the Church” seems by the preceding context to be the Baptis-
mal Creed, to which Cyril evidently alludes in the words,—
“having kept firm and uncorrupted the Confession which we
confessed before many witnesses.”’? But this exhortation might
well be made by one who held Scripture only to have authority
over the conscience. If Romish doctrine had never prevailed on
this subject, a Protestant might in similar terms commend the
Confession of his Church, especially the antient Creeds, to its
1 Ἔχων δὲ τὴν πίστιν ἐν ἁπλοῖς λογισμοῖς, καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας Thy παράδοσιν
καθάπερ τι κειμήλιον ἐν τοῖς τῆς καρδίας ταμιείοις ἐντιθεὶς, ἔχου τῶν ἀρεσκόντων
τῷ Θεῷ διδαγμάτων. In. De fast. paschal. hom. 8. tom. v. Pt. 2. div. 2. p. 94.
2 ᾿Ακλινῇ δὲ Kal ἀπαράφθορον τὴν ὁμολογίαν φυλάξαντες, ἣν ὡμολογήκαμεν ἐπὶ
πολλῶν μαρτύρων. ID. ib.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 187
members, in perfect consistency with his maintenance of Scrip-
ture as the sole authoritative Rule of faith.
And the Fathers, speaking at a time when the modern doc-
trine, that Tradition is a part of the Rule of faith, was un-
known, would feel no scruple in using such language. To
understand their real views, we must consider their statements
as a whole, and compare one with another.
IstporE oF PeEtusivum. (fl. a. 412.)
“ To ascertain that these things are so,” says Isidore of Pelu-
sium, “let us inspect the rule (or, canon) of truth; I mean, the
Holy Scriptures.”
And in opposition to the doctrine of Origen on the lapse of
souls, he says, that, among other objections, two in particular
seemed to him to be fatal to it; one of which was, “ that it was
not clearly delivered in the Scriptures.” *
Tueoporet. (fl. a. 423.)
I proceed to Theodoret, whose testimony in our favor is most
clear and decisive.
First, as to Scripture being the sole authoritative Rule of
faith.
In the first of his Dialogues on the Divine Being, called from
the name given in them to the heterodox disputant, Hranistes,
he puts into the mouth of Orthodox, (the representative of his
‘own views) the following observation ;—“Do not bring me
“human reasonings and syllogisms, for I Giv—E CREDENCE TO
© ἸῊΒ Divine ScRipTuRE ALONE.”’?®
1 "Ori δὲ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας, Tas θείας, φημὶ, γραφὰς
κατοπτεύσωμεν. Τί οὖν φησίν; x. τ. A. Istport Pexvs. Epist. lib. iv. Ep.
114. ed. Paris. 1638. p. 475.
2 Toy περὶ τῆς ἐκπτώσεως λόγον, ἀληθῆ μὲν, ὡς οἶμαι, οὐκ ὄντα, πιθανὸν BE
δοκοῦντα, πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα, δύο δὲ, κατά γε τὸν ἡμέτερον λογισμὸν, ἀνατρέπειν
δοκεῖ: ἕν μὲν, τὸ μὴ σαφῶς κεκηρύχθαι ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς" δεύτερον δὲ ἡ ἄκρατος
λήθη. In. ib. lib. iv. Ep. 163. pp. 504, 5.
3 Μή μοι λογισμοὺς Kal συλλογισμοὺς ἀνθρωπίνους προσενέγκης" ἐγὼ yas
μόνῃ πείθομαι τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ. THEoporEt. Eran. Dialog. 1. Op. ed. Schulz.
Hale, 1769 et seq. tom. iv. p. 18.
188 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
And a little further on, the heterodox disputant having
observed, “ You have explained this passage well ; but I should
“be glad to know how the antient doctors of the Church un-
* derstood it,”” OrtHopox says,—“ You ought to have been con-
* vinced by the proofs afforded by the Apostles and Prophets.
« But since you also inquire for the interpretations of the holy
“ Fathers, I will also, with God’s assistance, afford you this
“help.”! So far, then, from bringing the interpretation of
the Fathers as our authority for deducing such doctrines from
Scripture, he, in both these passages, clearly repudiates every-
thing but Scripture, as an authority by which we are to be
governed.
But Mr. Newman quotes Theodoret, and would fain make us
believe, that Theodoret’s views were accordant with his own.
“ Tn each of the three argumentative Dialogues,” says Mr. N.,
* of which his Eranistes is composed, we find the following
“ significant arrangement, in accordance with Vincentius’s
* direction already commented on—the arguments from Scrip-
“ ture come first, and then passages from the Fathers in illus-
“tration.” True; and a very good arrangement this, too;
and one which we may see in the writings of many of those
whom the Tractators would stigmatize as violent “ ultra Protes-
tants ;” and an arrangement which, when coupled with the pas-
sages we have just quoted, and others which we shall quote
presently, is “ significant’ of anything rather than an agree-
ment between the views of Theodoret and Mr. Newman ; for he
blames the person with whom he is arguing, for asking for the
interpretations of the Fathers, after the testimonies that had
been adduced from the Scriptures. What is still more extra-
ordinary, Mr. N. quotes the very passage we have just cited,
and adds to it these remarks,—“ As if he said, it is not now
“ the place for bringing mere authority ; I am proving the doc-
“ trine. Authority is well in its place, viz. before the contro-
“ versy, but now our business 15 with Scripture.” (pp. 389, 90.)
What can be the meaning of these words? Theodoret is here
1 Ἔδει μέν σε πεισθῆναι ταῖς ἀποστολικαῖς καὶ προφητικαῖς ἀποδείξεσιν. Ἐπειδὴ
δὲ καὶ τὰς τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἑρμηνείας ἐπιζητεῖς, Cyd σοι καὶ ταύτην, σὺν Θεᾷ
φάναι, προσοίσω τὴν θεραπείαν. ID. ib. p. 48.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 189
speaking of the ground, or evidence, or authority upon which a
doctrine is to be received ; and the only fit ground he declares to
be a demonstration of it from Scripture. Mr. Newman, on the
contrary, holds, that the interpretation given to Scripture by the
Fathers, is a necessary part of the evidence upon which a doc-
trine is to be received, a necessary part_of the Rule of faith ; on
which supposition Orthodox was quite mistaken in supposing
that his opponent ought to have been ruled by the passages
of Scripture he had adduced. The request made by the hetero-
dox disputant, was just what ought to have been made, accord-
ing to the scheme of the Tractators.
Nothing, however, can more completely prove the opposition
of Theodoret’s views to those of the Tractators, than the first
passage we have quoted above, (one which Mr. Newman has
very prudently omitted,) viz. “ For, I give credence to the divine
Scripture ALONE.”
And here we may notice, by the way, in reply to the notion
of the Tractators that the (supposed) unity of sentiment among
the early Fathers in fundamental points, is a proof of their
having learnt their views from a successional delivery of an ex-
position of the faith, more full than what is contained in Scrip-
ture, and derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, how
Theodoret, when alluding to the agreement of various excellent
men with each other, accounts for it. “1 admire,” says EranistTEs,
* these men for their agreement in the faith. For, all of them
* eave the same interpretation of the Evangelical declarations,
“ as if they had been assembled together, and drawn up a joint
“ exposition of their sentiments. Orruopox. Immense moun-
“ tains and seas separate them one from another ; but the dis-
“tance has not injured their harmony. For, they were all
“ taught by the same spiritual grace.” +
And in one of his Letters he again makes the same remark.
“ But the day,” he says, “would fail me in enumerating Poly-
“ carp, and Irenzus, and Methodius, and Hippolytus, and the
1 “Avaya τῆς συμφωνίας τοὺς ἄνδρας. “Araytes yap τὴν αὐτὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν
εὐαγγελικῶν ῥητῶν ἐποιήσαντο, ὥσπερ εἰς ταὐτὸν συνελθόντες, καὶ τὸ κοινῇ δόξαν
συγγράψαντες. OPO. Μέγιστα μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων καὶ ὄρη καὶ πελάγη
διίΐστησιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν συμφωνίαν οὐκ ἐπήμανεν ἡ διάστασις. Ὑπὸ μιᾶς γὰρ ἅπαντες
πνευματικῆς ἐνηχήθησαν χάριτος. Ip. ib. p. 48.
190 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ other teachers of the Church. Therefore we say in a word,
“ that we follow the divine oracles and all those holy men. For,
““ through the grace of the Spirit, having penetrated into the
“depths of the divinely-inspired Scripture, they became ac-
“ quainted with its meaning, and made it evident to those who
“ wished to learn it. For, the difference of their languages
“* made no difference in their doctrines. For, they were flowing
* fountains of the grace of the Divine Spirit, receiving their
“ streams from one source.”’+
These passages are a direct proof, that Theodoret did not hold
the doctrine, that we are to learn the meaning of Scripture from
an interpretation handed down from one to another from the
time of the Apostles, because he attributes the orthodoxy of the
Fathers he mentions to the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit ;
and in so speaking shows that he exercised the right of private
judgment as to what are the true doctrines of Christianity.
Many, also, are the passages in which he points us to the
Scriptures as our sole authoritative Rule.
Thus, in the same Dialogues, EranistxEs having said,—“ The
** dive Peter hath said, ‘ Christ, therefore, having suffered for
* usin the flesh : ”—OrrtHopox answers, “ And with this agrees
“ what I have said. For we have learnt the rule (or, canon) of
* doctrines from the divine Scripture.” 3
Again, in his work on heretical fables, he says, ‘“ The divine
Scripture is my teacher in what I say.”?
Again; “I exhort, therefore, those who shall read this
** work, to compare the divine declarations with each of those
1°AAAG γὰρ ἐπιλείψει με ἡ ἡμέρα Πολύκαρπον καὶ Eipnvatov καὶ Μεθόδιον καὶ
Ἱππόλυτον, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλους ἀπαριθμούμενον. Συντόμως
τοίνυν φαμὲν, ὡς ἡμεῖς τοῖς θείοις λογίοις ἀκολουθοῦμεν καὶ τούτοις ἅπασι τοῖς
ἁγίοις. Διὰ γὰρ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριτος εἰς τὸ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς
καταδύντες βάθος, αὐτοὶ δὲ τὴν αὐτῆς διάνοιαν ἔγνωσαν, καὶ τοῖς μαθεῖν βουλομένοις
δήλην ταύτην ἀπέφῃναν. Οὐδὲ yap ἣ διαφορὰ τῶν γλωττῶν διαφορὰν δογμάτων
εἰργάσατο" κρουνοὶ γὰρ ἦσαν τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος χάριτος, εκ μιᾶς πηγῆς τὸ
νᾶμα δεχόμενοι. Ip. in Epist. cui tit. Quod post humanit. assumt. unicus filius
sit Dom. noster Jes. Christ. ib. p. 1313.
2 Ὁ θεῖος εἴρηκε Πέτρος, Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν σαρκί. OPO. Τούτῳ
γε καὶ ὃ ἡμέτερος συμφωνεῖ λόγος. Ἔκ γὰρ τῆς θείας γραφῆς μεμαθήκαμεν τὸν
τῶν δογμάτων κανόνα. ΤΡ. ib. Dial. 3. p. 213.
3 Τῶν εἰρημένων διδάσκαλος ἣ θεία γραφή. Id. Heret. Fab. lib. v. c. 1.
tom. iv. p. 377.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 191
“ wicked doctrines, and learn, by a careful comparison, how
““ σγραῦ the difference is between the false doctrine and the
“truth...... But these are the doctrines of the divine Spirit,
‘ which it behoves every one to follow continually, and to pre-
‘ serve the rule of these doctrines immovable ; and by this rule
* to direct himself.’’!
Further ; as to the perfection of Scripture, we any observe
the following passages.
“The Scripture hath not used the word uncreated, but hath
‘* said that he is the Father. And I use that expression which
“ Scripture has used.... Though the word uncreated may
“ appear to accord with our views, yet piety permits us not to
“use it; for otherwise Scripture would certainly have used it.
« .... If it is written, I use the word; if it is not written, I
‘am under no necessity to use it.... I say not, that to con-
“ fess him to be uncreated, is what we cannot receive ; but that
‘although it may appear to fall in with our views, yet, never-
“theless, the word not being found anywhere in the divine
“ Scripture, it is not necessary to use it. For if it was neces-
‘ sary, the divine Scripture would have used it.’’?
“JT do not say these things definitively. For I consider it
‘ presumptuous to speak definitively of things concerning which
“the divine Scripture does not speak distinctly. But I have
“ said what I conceived was suitable to the views of piety.’’®
“Tt does not become us to search after those things which
1 Παρακαλῶ τοίνυν τοὺς ἐντευξομένους τῇδε TH συγγραφῇ, ἑκάστῳ τῶν πονηρῶν
ἐκείνων δογμάτων παραθεῖναι τὰ θεῖα, καὶ τῇ παρεξετάσει καταμαθεῖν, ὅσον τοῦ
ψεύδους καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ μέσον... .... ταῦτα δὲ τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος δόγματα"
οἷς ἕπεσθαι προσήκει διηνεκῶς, καὶ τὸν τούτων ἀκλινῆ φυλάττειν κανόνα, καὶ τούτῳ
τὴν οἰκείαν διευθύνειν ψυχήν. In. ib. ο. ult. p. 481.
2 ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐκ εἶπεν ἣ γραφὴ τὸ ἀγένητον, τὸ δὲ Πατέρα αὐτὸν εἶναι εἶπεν" κἀκεῖνο
λέγω ὃ H γραφὴ elwev......7d ἀγένητον, κἂν δοκῇ ταῖς ἐννοίαις ἡμῶν ὑποπίπτειν,
GAN 7 εὐσέβεια οὐκ ἐπιτρέπει λέγειν" εἰ δὲ μὴ, εἶπεν αὐτὸ πάντως ἡ ypadn......
Εἰ γέγραπται, λέγω" εἰ δὲ οὐ γέγραπται, οὐκ ἔχω ἀνάγκην cimely...... Οὐ λέγω
ὅτι τὸ ἀγένητον αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν ἀπαράδεκτόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν" GAN ὅτι κἂν δοκῇ ταῖς
ἐννοίαις ἡμῶν ὑποπίπτειν, ἄλλ᾽ ὅμως ὡς οὐδαμοῦ τῆς θείας γραφῆς κειμένην τὴν
φωνὴν οὐκ ἄναγκαῖον λέγειν. Εἰ yap ἦν ἀναγκαῖον, εἶπεν ἂν αὐτὸ ἡ θεία γραφή.
Ip. De Sancta Trin. Dial. 2.tom. v. pp. 954—6.
3 Ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτα οὐκ ἀποφαινόμενος λέγω. Τολμηρὸν γὰρ ἀποφαντικῶς οἶμαι
λέγειν, περὶ ὧν 7 θεία διαῤῥήδην οὐ λέγει γραφή" GAN ὅπερ τοῖς εὐσεβέσι λογισ-
μοῖς ἁρμόττειν ὑπέλαβον εἴρηκα. ID, Quest. in Genes. 4. 4. tom. i. p. 8,
192 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ are passed over in silence; but it behoves us to love those
“ things which are written.”!
“Jt is superfluous and unprofitable to inquire after those
things which are passed over in silence.” *
“ But we are instructed by these not to extinguish the Spirit,
“ but to rekindle the grace which we have received ; and to in-
“ troduce nothing foreign to the divine Scripture, but to be satisfied
“ with the teaching of the Spirit; and to hate the heresies of
“ those, of whom some have added fables to the divine oracles,
“and others have exalted their own impious imaginations
“ above the doctrine of Scripture.” ®
“Tam not so bold as to say anything which is passed over
by the divine Scripture in silence.’’*
Moreover, as to the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son
with the Father being taught fully and distinctly by Scripture,
we have the following testimony. “‘ Answer me, my friend, [says
“ Orruopox, in the Dialogues already quoted,] do we affirm, that
“the substance of God the Father, and of the only-begotten
“ Son, and of the most holy Spirit, is one—as we have been
“taught by the divine Scripture, both of the Old and New
« Testament, and by the Fathers assembled at Nice,—or do we
“ follow the blasphemies of Arius ?”’?
Again; “ Eranistes. I said, at the commencement of our
“ conversation, You nearly persuade me to become a consub-
“ stantialist. OnrHopox. You ought to say, to become a Chris-
“tian. For when you have become a Christian, you will ac-
1 Οὐ δεῖ ζητεῖν τὰ σεσιγημένα' στέργειν δὲ προσήκει τὰ γεγραμμένα. ID. ib.
q. 45. tom. 1. p. 57.
2 Περιττὸν καὶ ἀνόνητον τὸ τὰ σεσιγημένα (ητεῖν. ID, Quest. in Exod. q. 26.
tom. i. p. 143.
3 Ἡμεῖς δὲ παιδευόμεθα διὰ τούτων, μὴ σβεννύναι Td πνεῦμα, GAN ἀναζωπυρεῖν
ἣν ἐλάβομεν χάριν" καὶ μηδὲν ἀλλότριον ἐπεισάγειν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρκεῖσθαι
τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τοῦ Πινεύματος, καὶ μυσάττεσθαι τὰς αἱρέσεις, ὧν of μὲν μύθους τοῖς
θείοις λογίοις προσέθεσαν" οἱ δὲ τοὺς δυσσεβεῖς αὐτῶν λογισμοὺς τῆς γραφικῆς
προετίμησαν διανοίας. ID. Quest. in Levit. q. 9. tom. i. p. 187.
4 Οὐ γὰρ οὕτως εἰμὶ θρασὺς, ὥστε φάναι τι σεσιγημένον παρὰ τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ.
In. Eranist. Dial. 2. tom. iv. p. 122.
5 ῬΑπόκριναι, ὦ φιλότης, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Tiod, kal τοῦ
παναγίου Πνεύματος, μίαν οὐσίαν φαμὲν, ὧς παρὰ τῆς θείας γραφῆς ἐδιδάχθημεν
παλαιᾶς τε καὶ νέας, καὶ τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνεληλυθότων πατέρων, ἢ ταῖς ᾿Αρείου
βλασφημίαις ἀκολουθοῦμεν; Ip. Eranist. Dial. 1. tom. iv. p. 6.
ON THE SURJECT OF THIS WORK. 193
“ knowledge, that it is necessary to say that the Son is consub-
“ stantial ; being taught it by the divine Scriptures. For whatsoever
“ things are proper to God, these things are common to Father,
“ Son, and Holy Ghost.” ἢ
I do not believe that our opponents can produce a single
passage from Theodoret that even wears the appearance of
making Patristical Tradition any part of the foundation on
which the faith is to be built, or an authority binding the
conscience to belief. That there are many passages in which he
declares, that he holds the same doctrines as the great teachers
who had preceded him in the Church, and particularly the
Creed of the Nicene Fathers, and that he may speak so as to
show that he held their maintenance of those views a confirma-
tion of the correctness of his interpretation of Holy Scripture,
is quite true, but proves nothing as to the point in question.
For instance, the passage is sometimes referred to in which he
speaks of the Nicene Creed as “a sort of canon and gnomon by
which he directed his teaching.” But the passage, when taken
with its context, gives not the least support to the notions of
our opponents or the Romanists. It occurs in one of his
Letters, in which, after complaiming that his orthodoxy had
been impugned, he adds, that as he was constantly preaching in
the Church he had many witnesses to the correctness of his
doctrine ;—“ for,” he says, “we follow the Apostolic decisions
“ and laws, and applying the Creed laid down at Nice (or, Nicza)
“ by the holy and blessed Fathers as a sort of canon and gnomon
“ to our words, we direct our teaching.”’® He most properly ap-
peals to this as a test and proof of his orthodoxy. The Church
of England does the same in her Articles when she lays down
the three Creeds “as a sort of canon and gnomon” to the
teaching of her members. But why? Not from any intrinsic
1 Εἶπον καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ λόγου, Tap’ ὀλίγον με πείθεις ὁμοουσιαστὴν γενέσθαι.
Ο. Γένοιτό σε εἰπεῖν, Χριστιανὸν γενέσθαι: γενόμενος σὺ γὰρ Χριστιανὸς, ἐπι-
γνώσῃ ὅτι ὁμοούσιον δεῖ λέγειν, ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν διδαχθείς" ὅσα γὰρ ἴδιά εἰσι
Θεοῦ, ταῦτα κοινὰ Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Ip. De Sancta Trin.
Dial. 1. tom. v. pp. 944, 5.
2 Τοῖς yap ἀποστολικοῖς ὅροις καὶ νόμοις ἀκολουθοῦμεν, Kal τὴν ἐκτεθεῖσαν ἐν
Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ μακαρίων πατέρων, οἷόν τινα κανόνα καὶ γνώμονα
τοῖς λόγοις προσφέροντες, τὴν διδασκαλίαν εὐθύνομεν. ID. Epist. 90. tom. iv,
p. 1161.
VOL. III. oO
194 THE DOCTRINE-OF THE FATHERS
authority they have over our faith, but as the Article says,
because, in the judgment of those divines of our Church that
brought about the Reformation and drew up the Articles, “ they
may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”
Vincentivs or Lerins. (fl. a. 434.)
We are now come to an author, whose writings are very con-
fidently appealed to by the Romanists, and by Dr. Pusey and
his party, as supporting their views, viz. Vincentius, “a Pres-
byter, in a monastery in the island of Lerins ;”} and I do not
hesitate to admit, that some passages in his Treatise against the
profane novelties of heretics, speak strongly of the authority of
the Fathers ; although they do not support our opponents in the
grand fundamental position, that Ecclesiastical Tradition is to be
considered as in substance the representative of the oral teach-
ing of the Apostles, and so a divine informant. But I must also
observe, that, as it respects the value of Patristical Tradition,
his statements differ very materially from those of the earlier
Fathers ; and further, that the precept, for which his Treatise is
more particularly celebrated, being in itself a useful direction (so
far as it can be carried out) in the investigation of the truth, may
be, and is, quoted and approved, by many who do not attach to the
results obtained by its application the same degree of authority
which he himself and others might be inclined to attribute to it.
We are far, indeed, from being disposed to slight and discard
the testimony to which that Treatise appeals; but, regarding it
only as human testimony, we do not look upon it as being a
proper foundation for fuzth to rest upon. Nay, considering that
Vincentius himself nowhere claims for it a divine origin, we feel
some doubt whether he himself would have considered it in that
light. But at any rate, a monk at Lerins is certainly not the
man to dictate to the Church.
The followmg passages will give us a full view of his senti-
ments in this matter. I quote from the translation lately
published at Oxford, that there may be no ground for cavil.
“ Enquiring often with great desire and attention of very
1 GENNAD. Cat, vir. illustr.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 195
“ many excellent, holy, and learned men, how and by what
“ means I might assuredly, and, as it were, by some general and
“ ordinary way, discern the true catholic faith from false and
“ wicked heresy ; to this question, I had usually this answer of
“them all, that whether I or any other desired to find out the
“fraud of heretics daily springing up, and to escape their
“ snares, and willingly would continue in a sound faith, himself
“ safe and sound, that he ought, two manner of ways, by God’s
“ assistance, to defend and preserve his faith; that is, first, by
“€ the authority of the law of God; secondly, by the Tradition of
“ the Catholic Church. Here some man, perhaps, may ask,
“seeing the canon of the Scripture is perfect, and most abun-
dantly of itself sufficient for all things, what need we join unto
“1 the authority of the Church’s understanding and interpre-
“tation? The reason is this, because the Scripture being of
© itself so deep and profound, all men do not understand it in
“one and the same sense, but divers men diversely.... and
“ therefore very necessary it is, for the avoiding of so great
“ windings and turnings of errors so various, that the line of
“ expounding the Prophets and Apostles be directed and drawn
“ according to the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense.
“ Again, within the Catholic Church itself, we are greatly to
“ consider, that we hold that which hath been believed every-
“ where, always, and of all men: for that is truly and properly
“ catholic, as the very force and nature of the word doth declare,
“‘ which comprehendeth all things in general, after an universal
“ manner; and that shall we do if we follow universality, anti-
“ quity, consent. Universality shall we follow thus, if we profess
“ that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout
“ the world acknowledgeth and confesseth. Antiquity shall we
“ follow, if we depart not any whit from those senses, which it
“ is plain that our holy elders and fathers generally held. Con-
« sent shall we likewise follow, if, in this very Antiquity itself,
“ we hold the definitions and opinions of all, or, at any rate,
“ almost all the priests and doctors together. What, then, shall
“ a Catholic Christian do, if some small part of the Church eut
“ itself off from the communion of the universal faith ? What
“ else but prefer the health of the whole body before the pesti-
02
196 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ ferous and corrupt member? What if some new infection
“ goeth about to corrupt, not in this case only a little part, but
“ the whole Church? Then, likewise, shall he regard, and be
“sure to cleave unto Antiquity; which can now no more be
“ seduced by any crafty novelty. What if, in Antiquity itself,
“ and amongst the antient Fathers, be found some error of two
“ or three men, or haply of some one city or province? Then
“ shall he diligently take heed, that he prefer the universal
‘* decrees and determinations of an antient General Council, if
“ such there be, before the temerity or folly of a few. What if
“some such case happen, where no such thing can be found ?
“ Then shall he labour, by conferring and laying them together
“amongst themselves, to refer to, and consult the antient
“ Fathers’ opinions, not of all, but of those only, which, livmg at
“ divers times and sundry places, yet continuing in the com-
“munion and faith of one Catholic Church, were approved
“masters and guides to be followed; [or, rather, “ masters
“ kely to lead us right,” magistri probabiles,| and whatsoever
“ he perceiveth, not one or two, but all jointly, with one consent,
““ yluinly, usually, constantly, to have holden, written, and taught ;
“ Jet him know, that this, without scruple or doubt, he ought to
“ ‘helieves” (6§ 2; 3. «Oxf: ed. 1837.)
1 Seepe igitur magno studio et summa attentione perquirens a quamplurimis
sanctitate et doctrina prestantibus viris, quonam modo possim certa quadam
et quasi generali ac regulari via, Catholice fidei veritatem ab heretice pravi-
tatis falsitate discernere, hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli:
Quod sive ego sive quis alius vellet exsurgentium hereticorum fraudes depre-
hendere, laqueosque vitare, et in fide sana sanus atque integer permanere, du-
plici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet. Primo scilicet,
divine legis auctoritate: tum deinde Ecclesie Catholice traditione. Hic
forsitan requirat aliquis; cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon, sibique ad
omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est, ut ei Ecclesiastice intelligentize
jungatur authoritas? Quia videlicet Scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine
non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt: sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque
aliter alius atque alius interpretatur: ut pene quot homines sunt, tot illine
sententim erui posse videantur.... Atque idcireo multum necesse est, propter
tantos tam varii erroris anfractus, ut Prophetice et Apostolice interpretationis
linea secundum LEcclesiastici et Catholici sensus normam dirigatur. In ipsa
item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique
quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est etenim vere proprieque
catholicum, quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat, que omnia fere univer-
saliter comprehendit. Sed hoe ita demum fiet: si sequamur universitatem,
antiquitatem, consensionem. Sequemur autem universitatem hoc modo, si hane
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 197
The same advice he repeats elsewhere (§ 27,) but immediately
after adds the following important exceptions ;—“ Which antient
“ consent, however, of holy Fathers, is not so carefully and
“ diligently to be both sought for and followed in every small
“ question of the Divine Law, but only,. or at least especially, in
“ the rule of faith; neither yet are heresies always, nor all, after
“ this sort to be impugned, but only such as be new and upstart ;
“to wit, at their first springing up, and before they have, as
“hindered by the shortness of time, falsified the rules of the
“ antient faith; and before that, the poison spreading farther,
“they go about to corrupt the Fathers’ writings; but those
“ς heresies which have already got ground, and be of some con-
“ tinuance, are not this way to be dealt withal; because, by
“long tract of time, they have had long opportunity to steal
“the truth. And therefore such kind, whether of profane
ἐς schisms or heresies, which be of longer standing, we must not
“ otherwise convince, but only, if need be, by the authority of the
“ Scriptures ; or else avoid and detest them as already convicted
ἐς and condemned in old time by General Councils of Catholic
“ priests. Therefore, so soon as any infectious error beginneth
ἐς to break forth, and for her defence, to steal certain words of
“ the divine law, and craftily and fraudulently to expound them ;
unam fidem veram esse fateamur, quam tota per orbem terrarum confitetur
Ecclesia: antiquitatem vero ita, si ab his sensibus nullatenus recedamus, quos
sanctos majores ac patres nostros celebrasse manifestum est: consensionem
quoque itidem, si in ipsa vetustate omnium vel certe pene omnium sacerdotum
pariter et magistrorum definitiones sententiasque sectemur. Quid igitur faciet
Christianus Catholicus, si se aliqua Ecclesiw particula ab universalis fidei com-
munione preciderit? Quid utique nisi ut pestifero corruptoque membro,
sanitatem universi corporis anteponat? Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam
portiunculam tantum sed totam pariter Ecclesiam commaculare conetur? Tune
item providebit, ut antiquitati inhewreat; que prorsus jam non potest ab ulla
novitatis fraude seduci. Quid si in ipsa vetustate, duorum aut trium hominum,
vel certe civitatis unius aut etiam provincie alicujus error deprehendatur ἢ Tune
omnino curabit, ut paucorum temeritati vel inscitie si qua sunt universaliter
antiquitus universalis concilii decreta preponat. Quid si tale aliquid emergat,
ubi nihil hujusmodi reperiatur ὃ Tunc operam dabit, ut collatas inter se majorum
consulat interrogetque sententias : eorum duntaxat, qui diversis licet temporibus
et locis in unius tamen Ecclesia Catholicee communione et fide permanentes,
magistri probabiles exstiterunt: et quicquid non unus aut duo tantum, sed
omnes pariter, uno eodemque consensu, aperte, frequenter, perseveranter, tenuisse,
seripsisse, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelligat absque ulla dubitatione
credendum.” Vincent. Lininens. Commonit. §§ 2,3. ed. Oxon. 1836.
198 THE DOCTRINE ‘OF THE FATHERS
ἐς straightways for the right understanding of the canon, the
“ Fathers’ judgments are to be gathered together, by which any
“‘ whatsoever new, and therefore profane doctrine, growing up,
“ may, without any shift, be detected ; and without any delay,
“be condemned. But those Fathers’ opinions only are to be
conferred together, which, with holiness, wisdom, and con-
“ stancy lived, taught, and continued in the faith and com-
“ munion of the Catholic Church; and finally deserved either
“ to die faithfully in Christ, or happily for Christ to be martyred :
«‘ whom, notwithstanding, we are to believe with this condition,
that whatsoever either all, or the greater part, with one and the
same mind, plainly, commonly, and constantly, as it were, ma
council of doctors agreeing together, have confirmed by recewing
“ it, holding it, and delivering it; let that be accounted for un-
“ doubted, for certain and acknowledged truth. And what-
“ soever any, although holy and learned, although a bishop,
although a confessor and martyr, hath holden otherwise than
ἐς all, or against all, let that be put aside from the authority of the
“ common, public, and general judgment, and reputed among
“his own proper private and secret opinions, lest, with the
‘‘ utmost danger of our eternal salvation, we do, according to
“the custom of sacrilegious heretics and schismatics, forsake
“ the truth of the universal doctrine, and follow the novel error
«ς of some one man.” (§ 28.)
1 <‘Quee tamen antiqua sanctorum Patrum consensio, non in omnibus divinze
legis questiunculis, sed solum vel certe precipue in fidei regula magno nobis
studio et investiganda est et sequenda. Sed neque semper neque omnes hzereses
hoc modo impugnande sunt, sed novitie recentesque tantummodo, cum primum
seilicet exoriuntur, antequam infalsarint vetuste fidei regulas, ipsius temporis
vetentur angustiis, ac priusquam manante latius veneno majorum volumina vitiare
conentur. Czterum dilatate et inveterate hzreses nequaquam hac via aggredi-
end sunt, eo quod prolixo temporum tractu longa iis furande veritatis patuerit
oceasio. Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores, vel schismatum vel hzreseon
prophanitates, nullo modo nos oportet, nisi aut sola, si opus est, Seripturarum
auctoritate convincere, aut certe jam antiquitus universalibus sacerdotam Catholi-
corum conciliis convictas damnatasque vitare. Itaque cum primum mali cujusque
erroris patredo erumpere cceperit, et ad defensionem sui, queedam sacre legis verba
furari, eaque fallaciter et fraudulenter exponere, statim interpretando canoni ma-
jorum sententiz congregandz sunt, quibus illud quodcunque exsurgat novitium,
ideoque prophanum, et absque ulla ambage prodatur, et sine ulla retractatione
damnetur. Sed eorum duntaxat Patrum sententixw conferende sunt, qui in fide
et communione catholica sancte, sapienter, constanter viventes, docentes, et per-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 199
“We said in the premises, that this always hath been, and
* even at this day is, the custom of Catholics, to try and examine
“ true faith by these two manner of ways. First,by the authority
“ of the Divine canon ; secondly, by the Tradition of the Catholic
“ Church: not because the canonical Scripture is not as to itself
“ sufficient for all things, but because very many, expounding
““ God’s word at their own pleasure, do thereby conceive divers
“* opinions and errors. And for that cause it is necessary, that
“ the interpretation of the heavenly Scripture be directed ac-
“ cording to the one only rule of the Church’s understanding :
“ only be it observed, especially in those questions upon which the
“ foundations of the whole Catholic doctrine do depend. Likewise
“ we said, that, even within the Church, we were to look to the
“ consent, both of Universality and Antiquity, that so we be
“ neither carried away from sound unity to the side of schism,
“ nor yet cast headlong from antiquity of religion into heretical
“ novelties. We said, also, that in ecclesiastical Antiquity
“ itself, we were diligently to observe, and seriously to consider
“ two things,—unto which all those that will not be heretics,
“ must, of necessity, cling fast. The first is, that which hath,
“in old time, been determined by all the priests of the Catholic
“ Church, by authority of a General Council. The second is,.
“ that if any new question did arise, in which that were not to
“ be found, we ought to have recourse to the sayings of the holy
‘ Fathers; but yet of those only who, in their time and place,
“‘ were approved masters [magistri probabiles}, being such as
“ continued in the unity of the communion and faith ; and what-
“ soever we find that they held with one mind and one consent,
manentes, vel mori in Christo fideliter, vel occidi pro Christo feliciter meruerunt.
Quibus tamen hac lege eredendum est, ut quicquid vel omnes, vel plures, uno
eodemque sensu manifeste, frequenter, perseveranter, velut quodam consentiente
sibi magistrorum concilio, accipiendo, tenendo, tradendo, firmaverint, id pro indu-
bitato certo ratoque habeatur. Quicquid vero, quamvis ille sanctus et doctus,
quamvis Episcopus, quamvis Confessor et Martyr, preter omnes, aut etiam
contra omnes senserit, id inter proprias et occultas, et privatas opiniunculas, a com-
munis publics ac generalis sententie auctoritate secretum sit: ne cum summo
weternez salutis periculo, juxta sacrilegam hereticorum et schismaticorum con-
suetudinem, universalis dogmatis antiqua veritate dimissa, unius hominis novitium
sectemur errorem,” Ip. ib. ὃ 28.
200 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
‘to judge that without all scruple to be the true and catholic
“ doctrine of the Church.” (ὃ 29.)
* Necessary it is for all Catholics which desire to show them-
“ selves true children of their mother the Church, to adhere, stick
“ close, and hold, even to death, unto the holy faith of their holy
“ Fathers ; but to detest and abhor, pursue and drive out, the
“ profane novelties of all profane men whatsoever.” (§ 33.) 5
These are the passages in which Vincentius has stated his
views on the subject before us ; and we cannot but observe, that,
in many material points, they differ from those of Dr. Pusey
and his party. In the first place, there is not the slightest inti-
mation that the consent of the Catholic Fathers is to be received
as the representative of the oral teaching of the Apostles, and
thus a divine informant,—a point which, had Vincentius held it,
he could not have failed here to notice.
And one of our opponents’ own referees, Bishop Stillingfleet,
tells us, that Vincentius here ‘“ speaks of such an Universal Tra-
“dition, which depends wholly upon Antiquity, Universality,
“and Consent ; and never so much as mentions, much less pre-
“ tends to, anything of infallibility.” .. . . ‘ Vincentius speaks of
1 «Diximus in superioribus hane fuisse semper et esse hodieque Catholicorum
consuetudinem, ut fidem veram duobus his modis approbent. Primum, divini
canonis auctoritate, deinde Ecclesia Catholic traditione; non quia canon solus
non 5101 ad universa sufficiat, sed quia verba divina pro suo plerique arbitratu
interpretantes varias opiniones erroresque concipiant, atque ideo necesse sit, ut ad
unam Kcclesiastici sensus regulam Scripture ccelestis intelligentia dirigatur ; in iis
duntaxat pracipue quzestionibus, quibus totius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta
nituntur. Item diximus, in ipsa rursus Ecclesia universitatis pariter et antiqui-
tatis consensionem spectari oportere, ne aut ab unitatis integritate in partem
schismatis abrumpamur, aut e vetustatis religione in hereseon novitates preci-
pitemur. Item diximus in ipsa Ecclesie vetustate duo quedam vehementer
studioseque observanda, quibus penitus inhwrere deberent, quicunque heeretici esse
nollent. Primum si quid esset antiquitus ab omnibus Ecclesia Catholice sacerdo-
tibus universalis concilii auctoritate decretum. Deinde si qua nova exsurgeret
queestio, ubi id minime reperiretur, recurrendum ad Sanctorum Patrum sententias,
eorum duntaxat, qui suis quique temporibus et locis, in unitate communionis et
fidei permanentes, magistri probabiles exstitissent ; et quidquid uno sensu atque
consensu tenuisse invenirentur, id Ecclesiz verum et catholicum absque ullo
scrupulo judicaretur.” In. ib. § 29.
* “Necesse est profecto omnibus deinceps catholicis, qui sese Ecclesia matris
legitimos filios probare student, ut sanctz sanctorum Patrum fidei inhereant,
adglutinentur, immoriantur, prophanas vero prophanorum noyitates detestentur,
horrescant, insectentur, persequantur.” In. ib. § 33.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 201
“such a kind of Tradition as hath no connexion with infalli-
“ bility. For, if Vincentius had even in the least thought of
“ any such thing, so great and zealous an opposer of heresies
“ could not have left out that which had been more to his pur-
** pose than all that he had said.” }
Nay, it is obvious, that he did not trace their consent to this
source ; for he says,—‘ The holy and catholic consent of which
“ blessed Fathers, lest any man think that he may rashly con-
“ temn, the Apostle saith, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians,
“¢ And some verily hath God set in his Church, first Apostles ;’
“ of which himself was one: ‘secondly, prophets,’ as Agabus
“ was, of whom we read in the Acts: ‘thirdly, doctors,’ which
“ now are called expounders ; whom, also, this Apostle sometime
“nameth prophets; because, by them, are expounded ard
“ declared to the people the mysteries of the prophets; these,
“ therefore, divinely disposed and placed in the Church of God,
“ at divers times and sundry places, agreeing all in one mind in
“ Christ, touching the understanding of Catholic doctrine, who-
“ soever contemneth, doth not contemn man, but God.” (§ 28.)?
In this passage we may clearly see the ground upon which he
rests the claims of that consent of which he speaks.
Moreover, he warns us, in a passage already quoted, that
“ this consent is not to be sought for and followed with great
“‘ care by us in all the small questions of the divine law, but
“ only, or at any rate principally, in the rule of faith ;” (δ 28.) that
is, as he says in the next section, “those questions wpon which
the foundations of the whole Catholic doctrine do depend.” So
that he who pleads consent of Fathers as determining anything beyond
the rule of faith ; that is, according to the well-known Patristical
1 ΒΡ. STILLINGFLEET’S Rat. Grounds of Prot. Rel. Pt. 1. ο. 9. pp. 278, 9.
2 “Quorum beatorum Patrum Sanctum Catholicumque consensum, ne quis sibi
temere forte contemnendum arbitretur, ait in prima ad Corinth. Apostolus ;
[Vide 1 Cor, xii. 28. Simil. Eph. iv. 11.] Et quosdam quidem posuit Deus in
Ecclesia, primum Apostolos, quorum ipse unus erat: Secundo Prophetas, qualem
in Actibus Apostolorum legimus Agabum: tertio, Doctores, qui Tractatores nunc
appellantur, quos hic idem Apostolus etiam Prophetas interdum nuneupat, eo
quod per eos Prophetarum mysteria populis aperiantur. Hos ergo in Ecclesia
Dei divinitus per tempora et loca dispensatos, quisquis in sensu Catholici dogmatis
unum aliquid in Christo sentientes contempserit, non hominem contemnit, sed
Deum.” In. ib. ὃ 28.
202 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
use of the term, the Creed, or those elementary points upon which
the foundations of the whole Catholic faith rest, cannot quote Vin-
centius as supporting him in so doing. How far, then, Dr. Pusey
and his party gain any great practical benefit for their cause
from this Treatise of Vincentius, I leave the reader to judge.
But to this very important limitation to the use of the general
rule, the Tractators pay no attention ; but, on the contrary, apply
the rule continually to those cases in which we are warned by
Vincentius not to apply it. The controversy which they have
raised in the Church, respects, as they must be well aware,
points to which Vincentius did not intend his rule to apply;
and therefore, at any rate, with the exception of the single point
of the degree of weight due to the writings of the Fathers on
the points of faith laid down in the antient Creeds, the
Treatise of Vincentius is against their Patristical appeals.
Further ; he allows, that only new heresies ought to be so
attacked, and not those which areold; whose authors have had
the opportunity of corrupting the Fathers’ writings. These
latter, he admits, are to be condemned only by the authority of
the Scriptures ; or else avoided, as already condemned by General
Councils of Catholic priests. (ᾧ 28.)
What is more, and is directly opposed to the statements of
our opponents, he affirms plainly and with reiteration, that
“THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE IS PERFECT, AND MOST ABUN-
* DANTLY (SATIS SUPERQUE) OF ITSELF SUFFICIENT FOR ALL
“ pHines.” (ὃ 2, and again § 29.) And if such is the case, it
can be only the negligence of man that prevents his obtaining a
knowledge of what it reveals from itself. In fact, it is quite
inconsistent with this admission to say, as Vincentius seems to
do elsewhere, that Patristical Tradition is necessary to enable
us to understand the faith; in which, also, he is, as we shall
hereafter see, opposed to earlier and far better authorities, Chry-
sostom and Augustine for instance, who unequivocally affirm,
that Seripture is clear in all the fundamentals.
Still further ; the general tenor of the advice here given by
Vincentius as to our consulting the writings of the great lights
of the Church from the beginning, to ascertain what they held
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 909
as to the great fundamental truths of Christianity, is such as no
sane man will dispute the propriety of. The writings of the
most learned and pious among the Fathers are appealed to by
men of all opinions and parties, and every man feels their sup-
port, especially the concurrent support of a great number of
them, to be the strongest confirmatory argument for the truth,
next to Scripture, though at an immeasurable distance.
Hence, the rule of Vincentius as to the mode of ascertaining
catholic consent has been frequently quoted and approved by
Protestant writers; who, however, are not answerable for all
that he may haye said in his treatise; and as far as the rule can
be applied, it is a very good and useful one; but as to that con-
sent which fully answers his description, we say with Bishop
Stillingfleet, “Wise men who have thoroughly considered of
“ Vincentius his way, though in general they cannot but ap-
κέ prove of it so far as to think it highly improbable that there
“ should be Antiquity, Universality, and Consent against the
“ true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet when they consider
“this way of Vincentius, with all those cautions restrictions
“ and limitations set down by him, they are apt to think that
“HE HATH PUT MEN TO A WILD-GOOSE CHASE TO FIND OUT
“ ANYTHING ACCORDING TO HIS RULES; and that St. Augustine
“ spake a great deal more to the purpose, when he spake concern-
“ ing all the writers of the Church, that although they had never
“so much learning and sanctity, he did not think it true because
“ they thought so, but because they persuaded him to believe it
“ true, either from the authority of Scripture, or some probable
“ reason.” Nevertheless, it is evident, that to nothing less
than a consent which answers his description are we entitled to
attribute, upon his authority, the weight which he attaches only
to that of which he speaks.
The only point, then, in which Vincentius can be appealed to
as supporting the views of the Tractators, is the authority he
attributes to a certain concurrent testimony of Fathers on points
entering into what he calls the rule of faith ; and the question is,
are we to suppose that he held such consent to be binding
upon the conscience, or only a strong persuasive argument? I
1 Bp. STILLINGFLEET’S Grounds of Prot. Rel. Pt. i. c. 9. p. 279.
204 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
willingly admit, that of the authority of such consent he has
spoken in strong terms, but then it must be remembered, that
he is speaking to the professed members of his own communion,
and his meaning may be no more than this,—that if they wished
to belong to that communion, their belief, as it respected funda-
mental points, must agree with those of the received doctors of
that communion. That communion he of course called, as he
considered it to be, the Church. But would he have addressed
others in the same way? Would he have said to them, The
consent of those whom I call the orthodox Fathers has authority
over your faith as containing the substance of a divine revela-
tion? I donot believe that he would. And if he had, of this I
am sure, that the earlier Fathers would not have done so; of
which we have one direct proof in the case of Augustine, already
mentioned, who, in reasoning with Maximinus, gives up the
binding authority even of the Council of Nice. Indeed, the
absurdity of the thing is evident. For the question is, which
is the orthodox doctrine in the fundamentals of Christianity ?
And the wise plan here suggested for determining it would
then be, that we must abide by the decision of the orthodox.
Which leaves us just as much at a loss as ever. For, how are
we to know who the orthodox are, if we do not know what the
orthodox doctrine is? And nothing is gained by taking for
granted what involves the very thing to be proved, viz. which
are the orthodox.
And we cannot but observe, that there is one striking differ-
ence between his Treatise and the observations of the earlier
Fathers upon the same subject; and that is, the want of any
reference to Spiritual teaching. In a Treatise written to instruct
men how to preserve themselves from the contagion of heresy,
not a hint is to be found directing men to seek that Spiritual
teaching, which alone will lead them into any saving know-
ledge of the truth, and the necessity of which is so strongly
insisted on by the earlier Fathers, as we shall, presently, abun-
dantly show.
Amid all his protestations of regard for the Fathers, he seems
wholly to have forgotten their observations respecting the ex-
pectation we are encouraged to entertain, that God will accom-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 205
pany the reading of his own word with a blessing, which he has
not promised to the writings of men, and that the Holy Spirit
is promised to lead the earnest and sincere inquirer to the kuow-
ledge of the meaning of his own word.
And however inconvenient it may be, that men should support
the vagaries of their own brains under the idea that the Spirit
of God has taught them that such is the meaning of the word
of God, will the Tractators guarantee us, that none of those who
conduct their inquiry upon ¢heir principles, shall weary us with
the vagaries of other men’s brains? Men are at least as likely,
I think, to take up unfounded notions from a reliance upon
Patristical Tradition, as from a reliance upon the promised aid
of God’s Holy Spirit in the humble and sincere perusal of
Scripture.
Lastly, it should not be forgotten, that there is strong reason
to suppose, that this Treatise of Vincentius was written for the
purpose of supporting Semipelagianism. That Vincentius was
a Semipelagian is tolerably clear, and that he wrote a Semipela-
gian work against Augustine ;! and these views were apparently
held in common with him by the monks of his monastery.”
Now the Semipelagians defended themselves on the ground that
they had Antiquity on their side, and brought against Augustine
the charge of novelty ;> and, consequently, in all probability,
this work, written professedly to show that Antiquity was to be
followed, and novelty avoided, was written merely to aid his
party in this controversy.
It appears to me, that there is much truth in the following
observations of the learned Dr. Ramoldes on this subject, in
his Conference with Hart, whom I quote, not as an authority,
but as a witness worthy for his learning to be heard on such
a point.
“T liked,” he says, “his [i. 6. Vincentius’s] judgment in
“the general point touching the sufficiency and perfectness of
“ Scriptures, which I know you like not, though you make greater
“ semblance of liking him than I. If in the particulars I mislike
“ somewhat, let the blame be laid upon the blameworthy ; not
1 Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 425. 2 Cave, ibid.
3 See Prose. ad August. Ep., and Cavs.
4
206 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ me who stand to that which he hath spoken well, but him who
« falleth from it. For, laying his foundation as it were on a
“rock, he buildeth up his house beside it on the sand. That
“ Scripture is sufficient alone against heretics, so that it be
“ taken in the right sense expounded by the rules of the Catholic
“ faith; this hath he well avouched as on the rock of God’s
“word. But, that the rules of faith and sense of the Scrip-
“ ture must be tried and judged by the Consent, Antiquity, and
“ Universality of the Church, this hath he added not so well as
“‘ on the sand of men’s opinions. The difference of the points
“ may be perceived by St. Austin, who, joing in the former
“ of them with Vincentius, doth leave him in the latter. For
« Austin, as he setteth the ground of religion in the right sense
“ and Catholic meaning of the Scripture, so teacheth he, that
“this must be known and tried by the Scripture itself, the
“ infallible Rule of truth, not by the fickle minds of men.
“ (De Doctr. Christ. ch. 2. div. 2.) And to have taught hereof as
** Austin doth, it had agreed best with the foundation of Vin-
“ eentius ; which maketh the rule of Scriptures alone sufficient
“ for all things. But because the weaker and ruder sort of
“ Christians have not skill to know the right exposition of
“ Scripture from the wrong, therefore he, tempering himself to
“their infirmity, doth give them outward sensible marks to
* know it by. Wherein he dealeth with them as if a philosopher,
“ having said that a man is a reasonable creature, should, be-
“ cause his scholars cannot discern of reason, (whereof the show
“is such in many brute beasts, that some have thought them
“ yeasonable) describe him more plainly by outward marks and
“ accidents, as namely, that he hath two feet and no feathers.
“ They report that Plato defined a man so: a man is a living
“ creature, two-footed, unfeathered. For which definition, when
“he was commended, Diogenes took a capon, and having
“ plucked his feathers off, did bring him in to the school of
“ Plato, saying, This is Plato’s man. The holy word of God is
“ the same in the Church that reason is in a man. Whereupon
“we give it for an essential mark, as I may term it, of the
« Church, by which the Church is surely known and discerned.
“ But the show of God’s word is such in many heretics, as of
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 207
** reason in brute beasts, that some who have no skill to discern
“ that mark, do think it impossible to know the Church by it.
“ Your fellows hereupon describe the Church by outward and
“ accidental marks, as namely, by Antiquity, Succession, Con-
“sent. These are very plausible, and many do commend them
“highly. But he that hath half an eye ofa philosopher, I
“mean a wise Christian, need not play Diogenes in plucking
“ feathers off to show that these marks may agree to a
““eapon.” +
These are the observations of a man pre-emmently learned,
and one therefore whose testimony on such a point, 1. e. as to
the uncertainty of the evidence afforded by what passes under
the name of Antiquity, Succession, and Consent, is entitled to
great regard. And the mistakes and misrepresentations of Vin-
centius in the application of his own rule, (in his observations,
for instance, as to Agrippinus and Nestorius, to which we have
already referred in former parts of this work,) are alone sufficient
to make us cautious in the matter.
Savin. (fl. a, 440.)
“ Tf,” says Salvian, “‘ you wish to know, what is to be held,
you have the Sacred Scriptures to refer to.” ἢ
“ Condemn me, if I shall not show, that the Holy Scriptures
also have affirmed that which I assert.” ὃ
“The teaching of the Evangelical volumes is full of every
kind of perfection.” #
Prosper. (fl, a. 444.)
Prosper, giving a figurative interpretation to those words,
“ who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain,” (Ps. civ. 2.) or
1 Ratnorpes’ Conference with Hart, ed. 1584. pp. 191—3.
2 « Si scire vis quid tenendum sit, habes literas sacras.” SALVIAN. De Gubern.
Dei, lib. iii. Op. ed. Par. 1669. p. 42.
3. ἐς Condemna, si id quod assero non etiam Scripturas sacras dixisse monstra-
vero.” Ip. ib. lib. iv. p. 85.
. 4 “Evangelicorum voluminum plenam omni perfectionis genere doctrinam.”
Tp. ib. lib, iii, p. 45.
208 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
skin, as he translates it, says,—“ that the Holy Scripture is
“ called heaven, the authority of which God at the beginning
“placed as a firmament in his Church, and which, by the
‘* ministry of preachers, he extended as a skin over the whole
“ world.”! An interpretation whimsical enough doubtless, but
snowing nevertheless the view he took of the exclusive claims of
Scripture.
And in another work passing under his name, it is said,
““ What, therefore, may be the causes of these differences under
“ the same dispensation of grace, or what the reasons, who shall
“ say, since the Holy Scriptures do not say ?”’?
Cosmas Inpicopieustes. (fl. a. 535.)
“Τὸ behoveth not a perfect Christian,” saith Cosmas, “ to at-
“tempt to confirm anything from those [writings] that are
doubted of, the canonical and commonly received Scriptures
“ explaining all things sufficiently, both concerning the heavens
“ and the earth and the elements, and every doctrine received by
“ Christians.” ® And surely such a man, who had travelled far and
wide, was likely, if any, to take a catholic view of the matter.
n
a
Grecory. (fl. a. 590.)
We close our list with the celebrated Gregory.
Commenting on Job xxviii. 1. “There is a vein for the
1 «ἐς Extendens ccelum sicut pellem.’?...... Si figuratam significationem
adnitamur inspiciere, invenimus extendere Deum ccelum sicut pellem, cum
intelligimus Sanctam Scripturam coelum appellatum, cujus auctoritatem primo
quasi firmamentum in Ecclesia sua posuit, et quam super omnem orbem terra-
rum per ministeria preedicantium quasi pellem extendit.”” Prosper. Aquir. In
Psalm. ciii. [al. civ.] Op. ed. Par. 1711. col. 382.
2 « Que itaque cause sint harum sub eadem gratia dissimilitudinum, queve
rationes, sanctis Scripturis non loquentibus quis loquetur?” De vocat. gent.
lib. ii. 6. 9. Op. col. 895. This work, however, is supposed by Vossius to
have been written by ProsPER AURELIANENSIS, who lived at the beginning of
the next century. (See Cave.) The reader may, therefore, if he please, refer
it to that period.
> Οὐ χρὴ οὖν τὸν τέλειον χριστιανὸν ἐκ τῶν ἀμφιβαλλομένων ἐπιστηρίζεσθαι,
τῶν ἐνδιαθέτων καὶ κοινῶς ὡμολογημένων γραφῶν ἱκανῶς πάντα μηνυόντων, περί
τε τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν στοιχείων, καὶ παντὸς τοῦ δόγματος τῶν Χρισ-
τιανῶν. Cosm. Indic. De Mundo, lib. vii. in Monrravc. Coll. Noy. Seript. Paris.
1706. vol. ii. p. 292.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 209
silver, and a place for gold where they fine it,” he says,—‘‘ By
“silver, eloquence, by gold, celebrity of life or wisdom, is ~
* usually designated. And since the heretics so boast of the
“ beauty of their eloquence, that they care not to strengthen
“ themselves by the authority of the sacred books, (which books
* are as certain veins of silver in respect to what we say, since
““ from them we derive what we say,) he recalls them to the pages
“ of sacred authority, that if they wish to speak the truth, they
“ ought to take from thence what they say. And he says, ‘ The
“ silver has the sources of its veins;’ as if he were clearly
“to say, He who would prepare himself to preach the true
“ gospel, must take the grounds of his arguments from the sacred
“ nages, that he may reduce everything he says to the foundation
“ of divine authority, and upon it build the edifice of his speech.” *
And to Seripture he sends us as the Judge of controversies.
“ A man full of right faith..... . collects together those very
“ testimonies of Holy Scripture which the heretic produces,
“and thence refutes his error...... When we overcome the
“ heretics, boasting and bringing against us sentences of Holy
“ Scripture, by the same words and sentences which they
“ adduce, we as it were behead the proud Goliath with his own
“sword. Therefore the just man is clothed with those gar-
“ ments which the unjust prepares ; because the holy man uses
“the same passages in support of the truth by which every
“ perverse heretic endeavours to show himself learned against
ἐς the truth.” ?
! Job xxviii. 1. “* Habet argentum, venarum suarum principia; et auro locus
est in quo conflatur.” In argento eloquium, in auro vite vel sapientix claritas
designari solet. Et quia heretici sic de eloquii sui nitore superbiunt, ut nulla
sacrorum librorum auctoritate solidentur, (qui libri ad loquendum nobis quasi
quedam argenti vene sunt, quia de ipsis locutionis nostre originem trahimus)
eos ad sacre auctoritatis paginas revocat: ut si vere loqui desiderant, inde sumere
debeant quid loquantur. Et ait, ‘Habet argentum, venarum suarum principia.’
Ac si aperte dicat; Qui ad vere predicationis verba se preeparat, necesse est ut
causarum origines a sacris paginis sumat, ut omne quod loquitur, ad divin aucto-
ritatis fundamentum revocet, atque in eo edificium locutionis sux firmet.”
Grecor. Macy. Moral. sive Expos. in Job. lib. xviii. c. 26. Op. ed. Bened. Par.
1705. tom. i. col. 573.
2 “Vir recta fide plenus...... ea ipsa Scripture sacre que hereticus affert
testimonia colligit, et erroris ejus pertinaciam inde convincit......cum superbi-
entes hereticos et sacre Scripture sententias deferentes eisdem verbis atque
VOL, III. Ρ
,
210 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Moreover, in his view, Scripture declares the whole faith ; for
“by it,” he says, “God speaks all he desires.’1 “In this
“ volume, all things that edify, all things that instruct, are con-
“ tained in writing.” ?
Again, commenting on the passage, “They dwell by the
abundant rivers,” he says,—‘‘ While they adhere altogether to
“ the directions of Scripture, so as to do nothing but what the
“ Scriptures exhort, they as it were evade the enemy, by throw-
“ ing themselves into the water. And they [1. 6. the Scriptures]
“ are called abundant rivers, because on whatsoever points of
“ difficulty counsel is sought in the Scriptures, it 15 found there
“ fully on all points, without any deficiency.’’®
“Hlihu, foreseeing that God would form the Holy Scripture,
“ that in it he might reply to both the public and private ques-
“ tions of all, says, ‘Do you contend with him for not having
“ answered all your words? God will speak once, and will not
“a second time repeat the same thing.’ As if he should say,
“God answers not the hearts of each individual by secret
“words, but constructs such a speech as that by it he may
** satisfy the questions of all. To wit in the declarations of his
“ Scripture we each, if we seek, find what we are inquiring
“forse
“What, indeed, is the Holy Scripture, but a Letter of the
sententiis quas proferunt vincimus, quasi elatum Goliam suo gladio detruncamus.
Justus ergo vestitur eis vestimentis que preeparat injustus; quia vir sanctus
eisdem sententiis ad veritatem utitur, quibus se perversus quisque doctum osten-
dere contra veritatem conatur.” Ip. Moral. sive Exp. in Job. ὁ. xxvii. vv. 16, 17.
lib. xviii. c. 16. tom. i. col. 566, 7.
1 «Per eam [i. 6. Scripturam] Deus loquitur omne quod vult.” Ib. ibid. lib.
xvi. c. 35. tom. i. col. 517.
2 “ In hoe volumine cuncta que edificant, omnia que erudiunt, scripta conti-
nentur.” In. In Ezech. lib. i. hom. 9. ad fin. tom. i. col. 1264.
3 «Resident juxta fluenta plenissima’......Dum se consiliis Scripture ex
toto addicunt, ut videlicet nihil agant, nisi quod ex responso Scripturarum audiunt,
quasi in aquam se projicientes hosti illudunt. Qu fiuenta plenissima dicuntur,
quia de quibuscumque scrupulis in Scripturis consilium queritur, sine minora-
tione de omnibus ad plenum invenitur.’’ *Ip. In Cant. ο. 5. ver. 12. tom. iii. P. 2.
col. 440.
4 « Eliu autem previdens quod Scripturam sacram Dominus conderet, ut in ea
vel publicis vel occultis cunctorum questionibus responderet, ait, ‘Adversus eum
contendis, quod non ad omnia verba responderit tibi. Semel loquetur Deus, et
secundo id ipsum non repetet.’ Ac si diceret,—Deus singulorum cordibus privatis
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 211
*‘ omnipotent God to his creature?......Study, therefore, I
“ beseech you, and daily meditate upon the words of your
“ Creator ; learn the mind of God in the words of God.” +
SECTION IV.—WHETHER SCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE DIVINE RULE
OF PRACTICE.
I now proceed to consider the testimony of the Fathers on
the question, Whether Scripture is the sole divine Rule of
practice.
That it is so on all matters necessary to salvation, the passages
we have already quoted in the last section, are, I hope, amply
sufficient to prove to have been the general opinion of the Fathers,
and one which they very earnestly insisted upon.
But, as it respects the question whether there are any rites or
practices among non-essentials, not mentioned in Scripture,
which have an indubitable right to be considered as of Apostolical
institution, and a proportionate claim upon our regard, I admit
that some of the Fathers appear occasionally inclined to support
the affirmative.
Nevertheless, even here we maintain, first, that some of them
have distinctly advocated the view for which we contend; and
secondly, that others who appear in some parts of their writings
to take the opposite view, have elsewhere so modified those state-
ments, as to leave their testimony, upon the whole, but little
different, to all practical purposes, from that of the former ; and
lastly, that, even were it not so, our opponents, both Romanists
and Tractators, could not consistently maintain, that such (sup-
posed) Apostolical traditions are obligatory on us, because they
do not themselves adopt them all.
vocibus non respondet, sed tale eloquium construit per quod cunctorum questi-
onibus satisfaciat. In Scriptures quippe ejus eloquio causas nostras singuli, si
requirimus, invenimus.” Ip. Moral. sive Expos. in Job. lib. xxiii. c. 19. tom. i.
col. 747.
1 “Quid est autem Scriptura sacra nisi quedam Epistola omnipotentis Dei ad
creaturam suam P...... Stude ergo, queso, et quotidie Creatoris tui verba medi-
tare; disce cor Dei in verbis Dei.” In. Epist. lib, iv. Ep. 31. ad Theodorum
Medicum. tom. ii. col. 712.
PrP 2
212 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
First, then, we maintain, that some of the Fathers distinctly
advocate the view, that in all points Holy Scripture is the sole
divine Rule of practice.
For instance the testimony of
Cyprian (fl. a. 248.)
to this is plain and distinct ; as appears by the extracts already
given from his writings in a preceding part of this volume.’ So
clear, indeed, is his testimony, that a learned Roman Catholic
writer finds fault, as we have seen, with some of his own com-
munion for quoting him as favorable to the Romish view of the
question ; confessing, that “ Cyprian acknowledged no other Tra-
dition than what is contained in the Scriptures.” *
And to Cyprian we may, I think, without hesitation add—
FirMILian oF Ca#sarEA. (fl. a. 233.)
Firmilian, in his Letter to Cyprian,’ very strongly expresses his
approval of what Cyprian had written to Stephen, Bishop of Rome,
on the question of rebaptization, as quoted above ;* and ridicules
the plea of Stephen that their customs at Rome were derived
from Apostolical Tradition, as one evidently contradicted by
fact ;5 and, having, as he thinks, proved from Scripture, that
the practice he followed was the right one, he says, ‘‘ Who is so
“ vain as to prefer custom to truth ?”® adding, ‘ But we to
“truth join also custom, and to the custom of the Romans
“ oppose custom ; but the custom of truth ; holding this to have
“ been from the beginning which was delivered by Christ and the
« Apostles ;”?7 i. 6. in the Scriptures, to which he had been
referring. ‘‘ Nor do we recollect,” he says, “ that this had any
beginning with us, since it was always observed here.”®
1 See pp. 60—67 above.
See p. 65 above.
Inter Cypriani Epist. ep. 75, init.
See pp. 60—62 above.
See the passage quoted above, vol. i. pp. 317, 318, and 408.
“Quis tam vanus sit, ut veritati consuetudinem przeferat.” Ib.
See above, vol. 1. p. 316.
See ib.
nnrnanawnw ἃ δ bo
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 213
Putting these passages together (and we have only this one
Epistle to judge from), it seems tolerably clear, that Firmilian’s
view on the point now in question, was the same as that of
Cyprian ; especially when we observe, that while he claimed
immemorial usage in favor of the custom in his own parts, he
did not place its observance on that ground, but on the direc-
tions of Scripture.
That the name of Apostolical Tradition was mistakenly
pleaded for practices in use in the Primitive Church, others
of the Fathers will tell us, as we have already had occasion to
notice in the case of the controversy as to the observance of
Easter;! and Ireneus admits, that this might arise from
some bishops being negligent, and allowing that to go down to
posterity as a custom, which was introduced through simplicity
and ignorance.”
And hence men of experience and judgment among them
saw the necessity of Scripture-proof in such matters, before any-
thing could be confidently affirmed to have sprung from Aposto-
lical Tradition, as we see in the testimony of another witness in
our favor among the Fathers, whose “ peculiar judgment and
diligence” are praised, both by the Romanist Valesius, and our
own Cave, namely,
Socrates THE HistTorIAN. (fi. a. 439.)
Speaking of the difference in the Church as to the time of ob-
serving Easter, some saying that their custom was derived from
John, others theirs from Peter and Paul, Socrates adds,—“ But
“ none of these can show a Scriptural demonstration concerning
“ these things. I thence conjecture, therefore, that the feast of
““ Easter is observed in each place rather from some custom.”
And a little further on, he says,—“ And since no one can show a
* Scriptural command concerning this, it is manifest, that, even
“ with respect to this matter, the Apostles committed it to the
opinion and choice of each individual.” ὃ
1 See above, vol. i. pp. 306—312; and Rouru. Reliq. Sacr. vol. i. pp. 391 et seq.
See, also, Dionys. ALEX. Ep. Canon. in Rouru. Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 385 et seq.
2 See above, vol. i. pp. 308 and 408.
3 ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς μὲν τούτων ἔγγραφον ἔχει παρασχεῖν τὴν περὶ τούτων ἀπόδειξιν.
214 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
We have here, then, sufficient testimony to show us, that the
view for which we contend, has good and able witnesses in its
behalf among the early Fathers.
Nor can I pass on without reminding the reader of the re-
markable passage already quoted from
Grecory or Nyssa, (fl. a. 370.)
in which he puts forward the Rule of Scripture as our guide in
matters of practice, in a way which is totally inconsistent with
the views of our opponents. ὦ
Still further, we may observe, secondly, that of those who
appear in some parts of their writings to take the opposite view,
some have elsewhere so modified their testimony, as to leave it
upon the whole but little different, to all practical purposes,
from that of the former.
Such is the case, certainly, with
JEROME. (fl. a. 378.)
“ As to your inquiry,” he says, “respecting the Sabbath,
“‘ whether we ought to fast on it; and respecting the Eucharist,
« whether it is to be received daily, a practice the Church of
“ Rome and that of Spain are reported to observe, Hippolytus,
“a most eloquent man, has also written.... But I think that
“you should be briefly admonished, that ecclesiastical tradi-
“ tions, especially those which do not affect the faith, are so to
“ be observed as they are delivered by our ancestors ; and that
“ the custom of some is not to be overthrown by the contrary
“ custom of others.... but let every province abound in its own
“ views, and esteem the precepts of its ancestors to be Apostolical
aia 2
ὅτι μέντοι ex συνηθείας τινὸς μᾶλλον κατὰ χώρας ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ Πάσχα ἑορτὴ,
ἐκεῖθεν τεκμαίρομαι .. .. -- Καὶ ἐπειδὴ οὐδεὶς περὶ τούτου ἔγγραφον ἔχει δεῖξαι
παράγγελμα, δῆλον ὡς καὶ περὶ τούτου τῇ ἑκάστου γνώμῃ καὶ προαιρέσει ἐπέτρεψαν
of ᾿Απόστολοι. Βοσπατ. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. ec. 22. Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree. ed.
Reading. vol. ii. pp. 294, 5. See the whole passage more fully quoted, vol. i.
pp. 809—312.
1 See p. 144 above.
2 « De Sabbatho quod queris, utrum jejunandum sit; et de Eucharistia, an ac-
cipienda quotidie, quod Romana Ecclesia et Hispanie observare perhibentur,
scripsit quidem et Hippolytus vir disertissimus, et carptim diversi Scriptores e
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 215
This passage, I suspect, furnishes us with a key to the whole
matter. In points of ecclesiastical order which did not affect
the faith, it was on many accounts desirable, that the scruples
or perverseness of individuals, should not interfere with matters
that had been sanctioned by long usage in the Church, the
peace of the Church being thereby greatly endangered. There-
fore, says Jerome, let each province follow the customs which
have long obtained in it, even though they may be contrary to
what are observed in other provinces; and let each look upon
such customs as Apostolical laws. In these words the aposto-
licity of such matters is evidently not insisted upon as what
could be strictly proved, but as what, for the sake of the peace
of the Church, might, in a general sense, be allowed, where no
evil could arise to the faith from the admission. To the sen-
timents of Jerome, as here expressed, we are far from being
desirous of offermg any objection ; but, on the contrary, believe
that there was much good sense in the advice. And I suspect
that many of the Fathers, when they spoke of Apostolical tradi-
tions in such matters, took the same view of the subject.
That such, or very similar, was also the view of
AvGusTINE, (fl. a. 396.)
is, I think, evident on a review and comparison of various pas-
sages in his works. For though, when writing on the question
of the rebaptization of those baptized by heretics, he says,
“Many things which are not found in the writings of the
“ Apostles, nor in the Councils of those who came after them;
“ yet, inasmuch as they are observed throughout the Universal
““ Church, are believed to have been delivered and commended
“ to observation, by no others than by them ;᾽᾽ ὁ and that “ that
“ which the Universal Church holds, and was not instituted by
“ Councils, but always preserved, is most rightly believed to
variis auctoribus edidere. Sed ego illud breviter te admonendum puto, tradi-
tiones ecclesiasticas (presertim que fidei non officiant) ita observandas, ut a ma-
joribus traditz sunt; nec aliorum consuetudinem aliorum contrario more subverti
a ee epee sed unaquzeque provincia abundet in sensu suo, et praecepta majorum
leges Apostolicas arbitretur.” H1eron. Epist.ad Lucin. ep. 71. ad fin. Op. tom.
1. col. 434, 5.
1 ἐς Multa que non inveniuntur in litteris eorum [i. 6. Apostolorum], neque-in
᾿
216 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ have been delivered by no other than Apostolical authority ;”?
yet, nevertheless, as Bishop Taylor says,—‘It seems, himself
“‘ was not sure, that so little a foundation could carry so big a
“ weight ; he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this
“ question ; ‘ Whether is more pernicious, not to be baptized,
“ or to be re-baptized, is hard to judge; nevertheless, having
“recourse to the standard of our Lord, where the monuments
“of this are not estimated by human sense, but by divine
“ authority, I find concerning each of them the sentence of our
“ Lord, (Contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 14, &c. 17 and 24), to wit, in
“ the Seriptures.”? And so, still more strongly in another
passage, Augustine says, “ Lest I should seem to treat the
“ matter with human arguments, since the obscurity of this ques-
“ tion drove great men, in former times of the Church, before
“ the schism of Donatus, and men endued with much Christian
* charity, episcopal Fathers, to differ from one another, &c.....
“1 produce from the Gospel certain proofs, by which, the Lord
* helping me, I prove how rightly and truly, according to the
“ Divine will, it has been ordained,” &c.2 And so far is he
from disapproving of Cyprian’s reference to Scripture in the
question, that he says,—~ But what Cyprian advises, namely,
“that we must go back to the fountain head, that is, to Apo-
“ stolical Tradition,—and thence direct the stream to our own
“times, is the best, and without doubt to be done. It is,
“ therefore, delivered to us, as he himself relates, by the
“ Apostles, that there is one God, and one Christ, and one
“hope, &c. [Eph. iv. 4.]”* And he says, ‘ That which the
conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur Ecclesiam, non
nisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduntur.” Ateust. De bapt. contra Donat.
lib. ii. c. 7. ix. col. 102.
1 «© Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum
est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.” In. ib. lib. iv.
c. 24. ix. 140.
2 Be. Taytor’s Works, vol. x. p. 483, 434.
3 Avueust. De bapt. contra Donat. lib. i. 6. 7. tom. ix. col. 84. See above,
vol.i. p. 322.
4 « Quod autem nos admonet, ut ad fontem recurramus, id est, ad Apostolicam
traditionem, et inde canalem in nostra tempora dirigamus, optimum est, et sine
dubitatione faciendum. Traditum est ergo nobis, sicut ipse commemorat, ab
Apostolis, quod sit unus Deus, et Christus unus, ἕο. [Eph. iv. 4.1 Ip. De bapt.
contra Don. lib. v. c. 26. ix. 158.
~
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 217
“ custom of the Church hath ever held, that which this disputa-
“ tion cannot disincline us to, and that which a General Council
“ has confirmed, that we follow. Add to this, that the reasons
“ and testimonies of Scripture adduced on both sides having been
“ well weighed, it may also be said, That which truth has de-
“ clared, that we follow.”’! It seems, then, that after all, the
burthen of proof, as to the Apostolicity of the custom, was thrown
by him upon Scripture ; which shows the misgivings of his mind
as to the sufficiency of the other evidence.
And this view of his sentiments seems to me strongly con-
firmed by a remark he makes in his Letter to Casulanus, where,
on the question of fasting on the Sabbath, he says, “In these
“ things in which the divine Scripture has determined nothing
“ certain, the custom of the people of God, or the institutes of
“ our ancestors, are to be considered as a law.”? Here it is
evident, that, for matters of this kind not determined in Scrip-
ture, he claims no other sanction than that which long ecclesi-
astical usage gives them; and such usage he justly thinks that
individuals should reckon equivalent to a law. Upon the whole,
then, his view seems to differ but little, ifat all, practically from
that which we maintain. There are no references to be found in
Augustine to “precious Apostolical relics,’ demanding “the
same reverence” from us as the written Word.
Finally, we must remark, that, even were the testimony of
these Fathers different from what it is, our opponents, both
Romanists and Tractators, could not consistently maintain, that
such (supposed) Apostolical traditions are obligatory on the
Church, because they do not themselves adopt them all.
I have already given some proofs of this ;? and more might
easily be added, as will hardly, I suppose, be denied. I will not,
1“ Quod Ecclesiz consuetudo semper tenuit, quod hee disputatio dissuadere
non potuit, et quod plenarium concilium confirmavit, hoc sequimur. Hucaccedit,
quod bene perspectis ex utroque latere disputationis rationibus et Scripturarum
testimoniis, potest etiam dici, Quod veritas declaravit, hoc sequimur.” Ib. De bapt.
contra Don. lib. iv. c. 6. ix. 126.
2 “Tn his enim rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura divina, mos populi
Dei vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt.” In. Epist. ad Casulan. ep. 36.
(al. 86.) § 2. ii. 68.
8 See above, vol. i. pp. 397, 398.
218 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
therefore, detain the reader by enumerating other instances.
But it clearly follows from hence, either that they do not con-
sider Patristical testimony sufficient to prove the Apostolical
origin of these practices,—which is in direct contradiction to
their professed theory,—or that they hold, that, even if they
were of Apostolical origin, the Church, or any independent
portion of it, has power to deviate from them ; which practically
leaves the matter much in the same state as the view for which
we contend. We do not deny the possibility, that some of the
rites now in use in the Church, of those not mentioned in Serip-
ture, may have had Apostolical sanction for their introduction,
as for instance the use of the sign of the cross in baptism, though
we believe that we have no sufficient evidence to prove the Apo-
stolicity of any of them; and we hold that the Church, or each
independent Church, has the power of ordering such matters
according to its own discretion, and that individuals ought, for
the sake of the peace of the Church, to acquiesce in its decisions.
The advice, therefore, of Jerome, that individuals should, in such
matters, look upon the customs of their Church that have come
down to them from of old as equivalent to Apostolical usages,
and the similar advice of Augustine, appear to us to have—in
their due place, and within their due limits,—much practical
wisdom. And it would, perhaps, have been well for the Church,
if the remark of Gregory the Great had been more borne in mind
by all parties, that “ while the faith is one and the same, a dif-
ference of customs is no injury to the Church.”! If, then, any
one chooses to contend for the Apostolicity of any particular
practice or practices sanctioned by very early and general eccle-
siastical usage, but at the same time allows, that these things
are left to the discretion of each independent Church, the prac-
tical result is much the same as in the former view of the matter.
But if we are bound, as our opponents seem to think, to observe
all those practices that had Apostolical sanction for their ob-
servance in the Primitive Church, and the testimony of a few
of the early Fathers is held sufficient to prove that sanction ; or
even if we are only required to observe those that are said to
1 «Tn una fide nihil officit sanctee Ecclesize consuetudo diversa.” GREGOR.
Maen. Ep. ad Leandr. Epist. lib. i. 48.; Op. ed. Ben. ii. 532.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 219
have been delivered by the Apostles as of permanent obligation,
and the testimony of a few Fathers is held sufficient to prove
such a delivery; then if we receive one that pleases us upon a
certain amount of testimony, we must not reject another which
has equally good testimony in its favor, because we are dis-
inclined to it; and if we do, we are self-condemned ; which, we
humbly submit, is the case with the Tractators.
SECTION V.—WHETHER SCRIPTURE IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO
TEACH THE FAITH; AND HOW ITS MEANING IS BEST ASCER-
TAINED.
WE proceed to the question of the alleged obscurity of Serip-
ture; and the reader will probably have already observed, that
many of the passages cited in a former section in proof of Scrip-
ture being our sole and complete Rule of faith, equally show,
that the writers held, that it was a Rule perspicuous enough for
the guidance and instruction of mankind at large.
But we have testimonies in abundance of a more direct kind,
to some of which (as the question is of primary importance in
the present controversy) I shall now call the reader’s attention.
I begin with,—
Justin Marryr, (fl. a. 140.)
Who says, in his Conference with Trypho and his compa-
nions, ‘ Attend, therefore, to what I am about to call to your
“ yemembrance from the Holy Scriptures, which [Scriptures]
“ do not need to be interpreted, but only to be heard.”! And
this is spoken with respect to those passages which prove the
divinity of our Saviour; and in the context the true reason is
given, why, though they were so plain that no one could rea-
sonably misinterpret them, the Jews did not understand them,
viz. that because of their wickedness God had withheld from
1 Προσέχετε τοιγαροῦν οἷσπερ μέλλω ἀναμιμνήσκειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν
οὐδὲ ἐξηγηθῆναι δεομένων, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἀκουσθῆνα. Just. Mart. Dial. cum
Tryph. ὃ 55. Op. ed. Ben. p. 150, (ed. Col. p. 274.)
220 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
them the power to understand what was revealed in his word ;
which, and not any obscurity in them, is still the true reason
for their being misunderstood ; and he who charges God’s word
with obscurity, because men of perverse minds misinterpret it,
dishonours God, and deceives mankind.
Again; “ For it is ridiculous for any one to see the sun and
“‘ the moon, and the other heavenly bodies, following always the
“ same course, and yet to make a change in his mode of reckon-
“ing the seasons; and that an arithmetician, if asked how
“ many twice two make, because he had often said that they
“ make four, should no longer reply that they make four, &e.
« |. . or, in like manner, that one who is discoursing from the
“ prophetical Scriptures should pass over those Scriptures, and
“ς not always bring forward the same Scriptures, but think that
“ he himself can produce something better than the Scripture.”
From which we see, that he considered no language so fitted to
teach the truth as that of Scripture.
These passages, though we shall meet with many still more
direct and full in many other Fathers, are such as clearly indi-
cate the bearing of Justin’s views upon these points.
Further, it is not Tradition, but the gift of spiritual discern-
ment, to which, according to Justin, we must look, to enable us
to understand the mind of the Scriptures. “ If, therefore,” he
says, “any one should not, by the great grace which comes
“ἐς from God, have received power to understand what has been
“ἐς spoken and done by the prophets, it will avail him nothing
“‘ to seem to speak of their words or acts, if he cannot give any
“ account of them.”* And again, still more clearly,—‘ Do you
1 Τελοῖον μὲν γὰρ πρᾶγμά ἐστιν ὁρᾷν τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ τὴν σελήνην, kal τὰ ἄλλα
ἄστρα τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὺν del, καὶ τὰς τροπὰς τῶν ὡρῶν ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ τὸν ψηφιστικὸν
ἄνδρα, εἰ ἐξετάζοιτο τὰ δὶς δύο πόσά ἐστι, διὰ τὸ πολλάκις εἰρηκέναι ὅτι τέσσαρα,
παύσεσθαι τοῦ πάλιν λέγειν ὅτι τέσσαρα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὁμοίως ὅσα παγίως ὅμολο-
γεῖται, ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως λέγεσθαι καὶ ὁμολογεῖσθαι" τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν τῶν προ-
φητικῶν ὁμιλίας ποιούμενον ἐᾷν, καὶ μὴ τὰς αὐτὰς ἀεὶ λέγειν γραφὰς, ἀλλ᾽ ἡγεῖσθαι
ἑαυτὸν βέλτιον τῆς γραφῆς γεννήσαντα εἰπεῖν. Ip. ib. ὃ 85. p. 182. (ed. Col.
Ῥ. 311, 12.)
2 El οὖν τις μὴ μετὰ μεγάλης χάριτος τῆς παρὰ Θεοῦ λάβοι νοῆσαι τὰ εἰρημένα
καὶ γεγενημένα ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν, οὐδὲν αὐτὸν ὀνήσει τὸ τὰς ῥήσεις δοκεῖν λέγειν,
ἢ τὰ γεγενημένα, εἰ μὴ λόγον ἔχει καὶ περὶ αὐτῶν ἀποδιδόναι. 10. ib. § 92.
p- 189. (ed. Col. p. 319.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 221
“ think, therefore, O men, that we could ever have understood
“ these things in the Scriptures, unless, through the will of
“him who willed them, we had received grace to understand
“ them?” }
It is not, then, to Tradition, but to Divine grace, even the
influence of the Holy Spirit received individually, to which Justin
Martyr would lead us as the interpreter of the Scriptures.
I pass on to,—
Irenzvs. (fl. a. 167.)
“Α sound mind,” says Irenzus, “and one that is not rash,
“ but cautious, and a lover of truth, will earnestly search out
“ whatever things God has piaced within the power of man,
“ and subjected to our comprehension, and will advance in the
“ knowledge of them, making the knowledge of them easy to
“itself by daily study. But these things are those that fall
“ under our sight, and as many things as are declared clearly and
“ unambiguously in express terms in the divine Scriptures. And
“ therefore the parables [1. e. those things that are mystically
* expressed] ought to be explained suitably to those parts that are
“ unambiguous, for thus both he who explains, explains without
* danger, and the parables receive a like explanation from all.
«|... But it is foolish to apply those things which are spoken
“‘ obscurely, and not placed before our eyes, to explanations of
“the parables, which each one makes out to mean what he,
* pleases; for thus no one will possess the rule of truth, but
* there will appear to be as many truths opposed to each other,
“ and establishing contrary doctrines, as there are interpreters
* of the parables, as is the case with the questions of the Gen-
* tile Philosophers. So that, according to this method of pro-
“ ceeding, a man may be always seeking and never find the
“ truth, because he has rejected the proper method for disco-
Sewers ibs. τὸς Since, therefore, all the Scriptures, both
““ Prophetic and Evangelic, may be heard by all, (though all do
“ not believe,) openly and unambiguously and alike proclaiming,
1 Οἴεσθε οὖν ἡμᾶς ποτὲ, ὦ ἄνδρες, νενοηκέναι δυνηθῆναι ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ταῦτα,
εἰ μὴ θελήματι τοῦ θελήσαντος αὐτὰ ἐλάβομεν χάριν τοῦ νοῆσαι; Ip. ib. § 119.
p- 211. (ed. Col. p. 346.)
’
222 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ that the one and only God, to the exclusion of others, made
all things by his Word, whether they be visible or invisible,
“ or heavenly or earthly, or marine or subterranean, as we have
“ demonstrated from the very words of Scripture ;—that very
“created system in which we are, bearing witness by those
“ things which are seen, to this fact, that there is one Bemg
“who made and governs it ;—they will appear very dull, who
“ blind their eyes to so clear a manifestation of the truth, and
“ are unwilling to see the light of that which is thus proclaimed
εἶ . Since the parables can receive many explanations, who
-ς that ἰὸν es the truth will not confess, that to affirm anything
“from them respecting our inquiry after God, relinquishing
“ what is certain and beyond doubt and true, is the part of rash
“ and irrational persons? And is not this to build our house,
“ not upon a firm and strong rock, and one situated in an open
“ place, but upon the uncertain foundation of the scattered
“sand? Whence the overthrow of such a building is easy.
“ Having, therefore, truth itself as our rule, and the testimony re-
“ snecting God placed openly before our view, we ought not to
“ cast away a firm and true knowledge concerning God by
“interpretations of questions diverging in various directions
“from the truth . . . . But if we cannot find out the explana-
“ tions of all those things which are sought in the Scriptures
ENG we ought to yield such things to God who made us,
“ knowing well, that the Scriptures are perfect, as having been
“ spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit ; but we, in pro-
“ portion as we are inferior and far removed from the Word of
“ God and his Spirit, so far do we lack the knowledge of his
“ mysteries. And it is not wonderful, if, in spiritual and hea-
“ venly things, and those things which have to be revealed, we
“ suffer this, since even of those things which are before our
“ feet, I mean the things which are in this created system,
“ which are touched by us and seen, and are with us, many
“ things have escaped our knowledge, and we leave these things
“to God... . If, therefore, in this way which we have men-
“ tioned, we leave some questions to God, we shall both preserve
“our faith, and persevere without danger, and all Scripture
“ given to us by God will be found by us harmonious, and the
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 223
“ parables will agree with those things which are spoken per-
* spicuously, and the things spoken perspicuously will explain the
“ parables.” +
1 Ὁ ὑγιὴς νοῦς καὶ ἀκίνδυνος, καὶ εὐλαβὴς, καὶ φιλαληθὴς, ὅσα ἐν TH τῶν ἂν-
θρώπων ἐξουσίᾳ δέδωκεν ὃ Θεὸς, καὶ ὑποτέταχε τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ γνώσει, ταῦτα προθύμως
ἐκμελετήσει, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς προκόψει, διὰ τῆς καθημερινῆς ἀσκήσεως ῥᾳδίαν τὴν
μάθησιν ἑαυτῷ ποιούμενος. Ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα, τά τε ὕπ᾽ ὄψιν πίπτοντα τὴν ἡμετέραν,
καὶ ὅσα φανερῶς καὶ ἀναμφιβόλως αὐτολεξεὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς λέλεκται. Et
ideo parabole debent non ambiguis adaptari: sic enim et qui absolvit, sine
periculo absolvit, et parabola ab omnibus similiter absolutionem accipient......
Sed que non aperte dicta sunt, neque ante oculos posita, [stultum est, omn. edd.
addend. putant| copulare absolutionibus parabolarum, quas unusquisque prout
vult adinvenit. Sic enim apud nullum erit regula veritatis; sed quanti fuerint,
qui absolvent parabolas, tantze videbuntur veritates pugnantes semet invicem, et
contraria sibimet dogmata statuentes, sicut et Gentilium philosophorum ques-
tiones. Itaque secundum hane rationem, homo quidem semper inquiret, nun-
quam autem inveniet, eo quod ipsam inventionis abjecerit disciplinam...... Cum
itaque universe Scripture, et Prophetiw, et Evangelia in aperto, et sine ambi-
guitate, et similiter ab omnibus andiri possint, etsi non omnes credunt; unum et
solum Deum, ad excludendos alios, preedicent omnia fecisse per Verbum suum, sive
visibilia, sive invisibilia, sive ccelestia, sive terrena, sive aquatilia, sive subterranea,
sicut demonstravimus ex ipsis Scripturarum dictionibus; et ipsa autem creatura
in qua sumus, per ea quee in aspectum veniunt, hoc ipsum testante, unum esse qui
eam fecerit et regat: valde hebetes apparebunt, qui ad tam lucidam adapertionem
cecutiunt oculos, et nolunt videre lumen preedicationis...... Quia autem parabolze
possunt multas recipere absolutiones, ex ipsis de inquisitione Dei affirmare, relin-
quentes quod certum et indubitatum et verum est, valde precipitantium se in
periculum, et irrationabilium esse, quis non amantium veritatem confitebitur ?
Et numquid hoc est non in petra firma, et valida, et in aperto posita, exdificare
suam domum; sed in incertum effuse arene? Unde et facilis est eversio
hujusmodi edificationis. Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem, et in
aperto positum de Deo testimonium, non debemus per questionum declinantes
in alias atque alias absolutiones ejicere firmam et veram de Deo scientiam
......Si autem omnium que in Scripturis requiruntur absolutiones non
possumus invenire........ cedere hc talia debemus Deo, qui et nos fecit, rec-
tissime scientes, quia Scripture quidem perfect sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et
Spiritu ejus dictze; nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a
Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum ejus indi-
gemus. Et non est mirum, si in spiritalibus, et cclestibus, et in his que habent
revelari, hoc patimur nos: quandoquidem etiam eorum quz ante pedes sunt,
(dico autem qu sunt in hac creatura, que et contrectantur a nobis, et viden-
tur, et sunt nobiscum) multa fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hee ipsa
committimus. ...... Ei οὖν καθ᾽ ὃν εἰρήκαμεν τρόπον, ἔνια τῶν ζητημάτων ἄνα-
θήσωμεν τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἡμῶν διαφυλάξομεν, καὶ ἀκίνδυνοι διαμενοῦμεν, καὶ
πᾶσα γραφὴ δεδομένη ἡμῖν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ σύμφωνος ἡμῖν εὑρεθήσεται, καὶ ai παραβολαὶ
τοῖς διαῤῥήδην εἰρημένοις συμφωνήσουσι, καὶ τὰ φανερῶς εἰρημένα ἐπιλύσει τὰς
παραβολὰς. TREN. Adv. her. ii. 27, 28. ed. Mass. Paris. 1710, pp. 155—7. (ii. 46,
47. pp. 171—4. ed. Grab. Oxon. 1702.)
224 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
I have quoted this passage at length, that the reader may be
enabled to judge better of the real force of the testimony con-
tained in it respecting our present subject; and it shows, I
hope, very clearly, that the views of Irenzeus upon this point
were very different from those of our opponents. He did not
think it at all inconsistent, to assert that a thing was clearly
and unambiguously laid down in the Scriptures, while he was
compelled to admit, that all do not believe it; and he tells us,
that the lover of truth earnestly searches out what God has
placed within his comprehension, advancing in the knowledge of
it by daily study, and that these things are, those things that
fall under our sight, and those that are declared clearly and un-
ambiguously in express terms in the divine Scriptures, and that
these things thus perspicuously declared are to be our guide in
interpreting those parts that are obscure.
We could ask for nothing more expressly affirming our view.
And, as we have already seen, he reproves those who, when
they are convicted of error by the Scriptures, find fault with the
Scriptures, “as if they were ambiguous, and as if the truth could
“not be found out from them by those who are ignorant of
“« Tradition ;”! a testimony opposing, zn terms, the view advanced
by our opponents, for this is the very proposition which they
maintain, viz. that the truth cannot be found out from the
Scriptures by those who are ignorant of Tradition.
Again, speaking of the four Gospels, he tells us, that they
“ breathe all around them immortality, and give life to men.”*
So he tells us, that the “ doctrine of the Apostles and their
“ disciples [1. 6. Mark and Luke whom he had been quoting]
“concerning God is made clear by their own words.”> Our
opponents tell us, that we are not to /earn doctrine from the
Scriptures, but only to go to them for what they call proof, but
Ireneus learned doctrine from Scripture.* | And when delivering
1 See p. 24 above.
2 «Undique flantes incorruptibilitatem et vivificantes homines.” J. ib. iii. 11.
p- 190. (p. 221.)
3 ἐς Manifesta igitur et Apostolorum et discentium eorum ex verbis ipsorum de
Deo facta est sententia.” ΤῸ ib. iii. 15. p. 204. (iii. 16. p. 238.)
4 « Sicut ex Seripturis discimus.” Ip. ib. ii. 28. p. 157. (ii. 47. p. 175.) “ Di-
dicimus enim ex Scripturis,”” &c. Ib. ib. ii. 28. p. 158. (ii. 49. p. 177.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 225
his doctrine respecting God, he tells us, when proceeding to the
Scripture-proof of its truth, that the Scriptures much more plainly
and clearly proclaim the doctrine.!
And, once more, he says,—“The faith which we profess is
“firm and not imaginatory, and alone true, having manifest
“ proof from these Scriptures [i. 6. the Septuagint version of the
“ Old Testament].”* How much more, then, must the Christian
faith have manifest proof from the whole Scriptures !
THEOPHILUS oF AnTIocH. (fl. a. 168.)
The next author to whom I would refer the reader is Theo-
philus of Antioch, who, in his two books to Autolycus, a heathen,
thus speaks of the capability even of the books of the Old Testa-
ment to teach the faith. “ But if you will, do you also read with
“ attention the prophetical Scriptures, and they themselves will
“lead you more safely, so as to enable you to escape eternal
“ punishment and obtain the eternal blessings of God.”? Again ;
“ Let it be your object for the future to study with a willing
“mind the things of God, I mean the things declared by the
“< prophets, that, having compared the things spoken by us with
“ those spoken by the rest of mankind, you may be able to find
“ out the truth.”* Again ;—“ Why should I enumerate a great
“ number of the prophets, who were many, and spoke a multi-
“ tude of things all agreeing with each other? or, those who
“ will, may, by reading the things spoken by them, know accurately
“ the truth, and not be led astray by vain fancies.”*> Again; “It
1 « Tpsis Scripturis multo manifestius et clarius hoc ipsum predicantibus. Ib.
ib. ii. 35. p. 171. (ii. 66. p. 195.) Utens his ostensionibus, que sunt ex Scrip-
turis, facile evertis,” ἄς. 10. ib. v. 14. p. 311. (p. 422.)
2 « Firma est autem, et non ficta, et sola vera, que secundum nos est fides,
manifestam ostensionem habens ex his Scripturis.” Ib. ib. iii, 21. p. 216.
(iii. 25. p. 256.)
5 Εἰ δὲ βούλει καὶ σὺ, ἔντυχε φιλοτίμως ταῖς προφητικαῖς γραφαῖς" καὶ αὐταὶ
σε τρανότερον ὁδηγήσουσι πρὸς τὸ ἐκφυγεῖν τὰς αἰωνίους κολάσεις, καὶ τυχεῖν τῶν
αἰωνίων ἀγαθῶν τοῦ Gcod. ΤΉΞΟΡΗ. AntIocH. Ad Autol. lib. i. § ult. ad fin.
Op. Just. Marr. ed. Bened. p. 346. (ed. Colon. 1686. p. 79.)
4 Kal τὸ λοιπὸν ἔστω σοι φιλοφρόνως ἐρᾳνᾶν τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, λέγῳ δὲ τὰ διὰ τῶν
προφητῶν ῥηθέντα, ὕπως συγκρίνας τὰ τε ὑπὸ ἡμῶν λεγόμενα, καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν
λοιπῶν, δυνήσει εὑρεῖν τὸ ἀληθές. ΤΌ. ib. lib. ii. § 84. p. 373. (ed. Col. p. 110.)
5 Kal τί μοι τὸ πλῆθος καταλέγειν τῶν προφητῶν πολλῶν ὄντων, Kal μυρία
VOL. III. Q
226 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ hehoves, therefore, one who desires learning, to be also willing
“to learn. Endeavour, therefore, more frequently to converse
“ with them [i.e. the prophetical writings], that, having heard
“ the living voice, you may /earn accurately the truth.”
TERTULLIAN. (fl. a. 192.)
What, again, is Tertullian’s view as to the aptitude of Scrip-
ture to teach the faith ?
The following passages, though bearing indirectly on the point,
as one not under discussion, will show his mind respecting it.
Thus, in his Treatise on the Resurrection, he says,—“ It is
“ indeed right, as also we have laid down above, that doubtful
“ passages in Scripture should be interpreted by those that are
“ certain, and obscure passages by those that are plain; both to
“the intent that faith may not be destroyed, the truth en-
“ dangered, and the Godhead deemed of variable mind, through
“a disagreement between the certain and the doubtful, the
“ plain and the obscure, as because it is not probable, that that
“ article of the Christian religion to which the whole faith is
“ committed, and on which all discipline rests, should seem to
“be ambiguously announced and obscurely propounded.”?
Scripture, then, is in parts plain, and where it is not so, that
which is obscure is to be expounded by that which is plain ; nor
is it probable, thinks Tertullian, that an important pomt of the
Christian faith should be propounded obscurely or ambiguously
in Scripture.
Again, in the same Treatise, speaking of the heretics, he calls
φίλα καὶ σύμφωνα εἰρηκότων ; of yap βουλόμενοι, δύνανται ἐντυχόντες τοῖς BY
αὐτῶν εἰρημένοις ἀκριβῶς γνῶναι τὸ ἀληθὲς, καὶ μὴ παράγεσθαι ὑπὸ διανοίας καὶ
ματαιοπονίας. ΤΌ. ib. § 35. p. 374. (ed. Col. p. 112.)
1 Χρὴ οὖν τὸν φιλομαθῆ καὶ φιλομαθεῖν: πειράσθητι οὖν πυκνότερον συμβαλεῖν,
ὅπως καὶ ζώσης ἄκούσας φωνῆς, ἀκριβῶς μάθῃς τἀληθές. In. ib. § ult. p. 379.
(ed. Col. p. 116.)
2 «Et utique equum sit, quod et super demandavimus, incerta de certis, et
obscura de manifestis prejudicari: vel ne inter discordiam certorum et incertorum
manifestorum et obscurorum fides dissipetur, veritas periclitetur, ipsa Divinitas
ut inconstans denotetur: tum quod gerisimile non est, ut ea species sacramenti
in quam fides tota committitur, in quam disciplina tota connititur, ambigue
annuntiata et obscure proposita videatur.” TrRrTuLL. De resurr. carn. c. 21.
Op. ed. 1664. p. 337.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 227
them, “ those haters of the light of the Scriptures ;”} im which
we may observe, by the way, how mistaken our opponents are,
when they tell us, that the Scriptures were the great refuge to
which the heretics betook themselves.
And, again, in his Treatise against Praxeas, he says, —“ More-
“ over, the Scripture is in no danger that it should need the aid
“ of your argumentation lest it should seem to contradict itself.
“ It speaks with good reason, both when it determines that there
“is one God, and when it shows that the Father and Son are
“ two, and is self-sufficient.”’*
And, in the same Treatise, having quoted some passages re-
lating to the distinction of Persons in the Trinity, he appeals to
them as manifestly setting forth that distinction.*
And in his Treatise “On Prescription of heretics,” he says,
that “necessity compelled those who purposed to teach other
“ doctrines to alter the instruments (or, documents) containing
“ the doctrine. For, otherwise, they could not have taught differ-
“ ently, unless they had different documents by which to teach.
“ As their corruption of doctrine could not have succeeded,
“ without the corruption of the documents in which the doctrine
“ is delivered, so integrity of doctrine would not have fallen to
“ our lot, without the integrity of those documents by which the
«< doctrine is delivered.’’4
It is evident, then, that he thought, that the Scriptures de-
livered the doctrines of religion clearly and plainly, when he tells
us, that to give any probability to the doctrines of the heretics,
it was necessary that those Scriptures should be altered. There
were certainly other modes of corrupting the truth, as he himself
1 “Vucifuge isti Scripturarum.” In. ib. c 47. p. 354.
3 « Porro non periclitatur Scriptura, ut illi de tua argumentatione succurras,
ne sibi contraria videatur. Habet rationem, et quum unicum Deum statuit, et
quum duos Patrem et Filium ostendit; et sufficit sibL” In. Adv. Prax. c. 18.
p- 510.
3 “His itaque paucis tamen manifeste distinctio Trinitatis exponitur.” Ib. ib.
5. 11. p. 506. See also c. 13. p. 507; and, De carne Christi, c. 15. p. 319.
4 < Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi, eos necessitas coegit aliter dis-
ponendi instrumenta doctrine. Alias enim non potuissent aliter docere, nisi
aliter haberent per qux docerent. Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corruptela
doctrine sine corruptela instrumentorum ejus ; ita et nobis et a nobis [et a nobis
not in edd. of Pamelius or Semler] integritas doctrine non competisset, sine
integritate eorum per que doctrina tractatur.” Ip. De Prescr. heret. ο, 38. p. 216.
q 2
228 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
mentions just after in the case of the Valentinians, who, as he
says, did not alter the Scriptures to suit their notions, but
excogitated notions which they tried to fix upon the Scriptures,
by a perversion of the meaning of the words, and similar arti-
fices; but this does not interfere with the observation we have
just quoted, that the only way by which heretics could give pro-
bability to their notions was by altering the Scriptures ; and that
observation weighs strongly in behalf of the view for which we
are contending.
The same remark, indeed, is expressed in a passage quoted
above, that if heretics are “ left to prove their points from the
Scriptures alone, they will not be able to stand ;” for, he who thus
thought, would certainly not have charged the Scriptures with
ambiguity or obscurity. In fact, this remark is in direct oppo-
sition to the statements of the Tractators, for they tell us, that
the heretics cannot be clearly refuted by Scripture standing
alone, on account of its obscurity.
And as it respects the proper mode of obtaining the sense of
Scripture in parts that are obscure, he tells us, in a passage
quoted above, that “ doubtful passages in Scripture should be
“ interpreted by those that are certain, and obscure passages by
“‘ those that are plain.”! And further on in the same Treatise,
he gives as a rule of interpretation for the point of which he is
speaking, and therefore I suppose for other points in like
manner, that “the sense is to be governed by the subject
matter ;”* a practical direction, which shows that he was not
dispesed to make traditive interpretation the test of truth. And
so again, in his Treatise against Praxeas, he says, that instead
of doing as the heretics do, who lay hold of a few passages and
interpret them in opposition to a multitude of other passages, we
ought to interpret the fewer passages by the greater in number.
1 ΤΡ. De resurr. carn. ¢. 21. (just quoted.) The same observation is also made
in c.-19 of the same Treatise, “ Manifestiora queeque prevaleant, et de incertis
certiora preescribant.” p. 336.
2 « Wx materia dicti dirigendus est sensus.” Ib. De resurr. carn. c. 38. p. 347.
3 « His tribus capitulis totum instrumentum utriusque Testamenti volunt
cedere, cum oporteat secundum plura intelligi pauciora. Sed proprium hoc est
omnium hereticorum. Nam quia pauca sunt que in silva inveniri possunt, pauca
adversus plura defendunt, et posteriora adversus priora suscipiunt.” Ip. Ady,
Prax, ὦ, 20. p. 511.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 229
These are practical directions, which, though not directly on the
point in question, yet indirectly show the bearing of the writer’s
mind, especially when taken in connexion with his own method of
obtaining the sense of Scripture as evinced in his various Treatises.
Let us pass on to,—
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. (fl. ἃ. 192.)
As to the perspicuity of Scripture and its aptness to teach the
faith, (with the exception, of course, of the mysticisms of his
“* Gnostic Tradition,”’) he speaks thus ;—
“‘ The divine oracles, exhibiting to us most clearly the way to
“ true religion, lay the foundations of the truth ; and the divine
“ Scriptures and wise institutions compendiously lead to salva-
* tion; destitute of ornament and external beauty of language,
“‘ and words suited to captivate and allure, they rouse man suf-
“ focated by vice; strengthening us against the evils incident
“ to human life; by one and the same word serving many pur-
“ poses, turning us, on the one hand, from the delusion that
“‘ would be injurious to us, and, on the other, clearly exhorting
““ us to the salvation set before us.’’!
Again; “The Apostle, knowing this doctrine to be truly
“ divine, says, ‘Thou, O Timothy, from a babe hast known the
* holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salva-
“ὁ tion through faith in Christ.’ For those Scriptures are truly
“ holy which make men holy and even divine. The same Apostle
“ consequently calls the writings or volumes composed of these
“sacred words and syllables, ‘ divinely inspired, profitable
“for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
“ righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
“ furnished unto every good work.’ ”?
1 Of χρησμοὶ, Tas cis Thy θεοσέβειαν ἡμῖν ἀφορμὰς ἐναργέστατα προτείνοντες,
θεμελιοῦσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν: γραφὰι δὲ αἱ θεῖαι, καὶ πολιτεῖαι σώφρονες, σύντομοι
σωτηρίας ὅδοί: γυμναὶ κομμωτικῆς, καὶ τῆς ἐκτὸς καλλιφωνίας, καὶ στωμυλίας, καὶ
κολακείας ὑπάρχουσαι, ἀνιστῶσιν ἀγχόμενον ὑπὸ κακίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὑπεριδοῦσαι
τὸν ὄλισθον τὸν βιωτικὸν, μιᾷ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ φωνῇ πολλὰ θεραπεύουσαι, ἀποτρέ-
πουσαι μὲν ἡμᾶς τῆς ἐπιζημίου ἀπάτης, προτρέπουσαι δὲ ἐμφανῶς εἰς προῦπτον
σωτηρίαν. CLEM. AtEx. Cohort. ad Gent. Op. ed. Potter. pp. 65, 6. (edd. Paris.
1641. Colon. 1688. p. 50.)
2 ταύτην ᾿Απόστολος Thy διδασκαλίαν, θείαν ὄντως ἐπιστάμενος, Σὺ δὲ, ὦ Τι-
230 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Again; “ Hear ye who are afar off, hear ye who are near;
“the word has not been concealed from any ; it is a common
“light, and shines upon all men. No one is in darkness who
“ knows the word. Let us hasten to obtain salvation,” ce. ;
where, though there may be a difference of opinion on the
point, the context seems to me to show, that by the word he
means the Scripture rather than the Logos.
Again, he says, —“On this account the Scriptures were
“translated into the language of the heathen, that they might
“ never be able to put forward the plea of ignorance, haying it in
“ their power to hear the truths of Christianity, if only they are
“willing. Truth interprets itself differently from what any
“man says respecting truth.’’?
Again; “The Prophets have spoken to us according as we
“ who are bound by the flesh are able to hear, the Lord aecom-
“ modating himself to the infirmity of men with a view to their
““ salvation.”*
Again, referring to the “Shepherd” of Hermas, he says, that
an observation of Hermas, that he had written the book given
to him in a vision according to the letters, not knowing how to
form the syllables, was intended to signify, “ that the Scripture
“ was clear to all, taken according to the mere words, and that
faith init in that signification possessed the elements of the truth,
“and therefore it was allegorically called the literal reading ;
μόθεε, φησὶν, ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας, τὰ δυνάμενα σε σοφίσαι eis
σωτηρίαν, διὰ πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ' ἱερὰ γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς, τὰ ἱεροποιοῦντα καὶ θεοποι-
οὔντα γράμματα: ἐξ ὧν γραμμάτων καὶ συλλαβῶν τῶν ἱερῶν τὰς συγκειμένας
γραφὰς, τὰ συντάγματα, ὃ αὐτὸς ἀκολούθως ᾿Απόστολος θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ, ὠφε-
λίμους οὔσας πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν
τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ" ἵνα ἄρτιος 7 ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν
ἐξηρτισμένος. Ip. Cohort. ad Gent. p. 71. (or, 56.)
1 "Axoboare οὖν οἱ μακρὰν, ἀκούσατε of ἐγγύς" οὐκ ἀπεκρύβη τινὰς ὃ Λόγος" φῶς
ἐστι κοινὸν, ἐπιλάμπει πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις" οὐδεὶς Κιμμέριος ἐν Λόγῳ' σπεύσωμεν εἰς
σωτηρίαν, κ. τ. A. Ip. ib. p. 72. (or, 56.)
5 Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ Ἑλλήνων φωνῇ ἑρμηνεύθησαν (ἡρμηνεύθησαν, Sylb.) αἱ Γραφαὶ,
ὡς μὴ πρόφασιν ἀγνοίας προβάλλεσθαι δυνηθῆναί ποτε αὐτοὺς οἵους τε ὄντας
ἐπακοῦσαι καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, ἣν μόνον ἐθελήσωσιν. ἤΑλλως τις περὶ ἀληθείας λέγει,
ἄλλως ἡ ἀλήθεια ἑαυτὴν ἑρμηνεύει. ID. Strom. lib. i. § 7. p. 338. (or, 288.)
3 ‘Os οἷόν τε ἣν ἐπαΐειν ἡμᾶς σαρκὶ πεπεδημένους, οὕτως ἡμῖν ἐλάλησαν of
προφῆται, συμπεριφερομένου σωτηρίως τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀσθενείᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου. ΤΡ.
Strom. lib. ii. § 16. p. 467. (or, 391). See also lib, vi. § 7. p. 770. (or, 644.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 231
* but we hold, that the Gnostic exposition of the Scriptures,
“‘ when faith advances, is likened to the syllabical reading.” +
And hence he says, in a passage quoted above, that “ they
who have tasted the Scriptures only are believers.”
From which passages it is evident, that he considered that
the Scriptures alone were adapted to give at least sufficient
instruction in the faith tomake men good Christians, though he
supposed them to need the impartation of his Gnostic Tradition
to lead them on to perfection, for “the Gnostic Tradition only,”
he tells us, “can understand and explain those things which are
spoken obscurely by the Spirit.” *
And with respect to the obscurities of Scripture, he says, that
‘ the Scriptures conceal their meaning on several accounts ; first,
that we may be diligent seekers and always on the watch to find
out the words of salvation; moreover, it was not fit that all
should know the meaning, lest, receiving what was savingly
spoken by the Holy Spirit otherwise than was intended, they
might be injured. Wherefore the holy mysteries of the pro-
phecies preserved for the elect, and those who are through faith
admitted to knowledge, are veiled in parables.”®
And, with the exception of his Gnostic Tradition, he makes
Scripture the interpreter of Scripture. Thus, in passages quoted
above, he says, “‘ We, giving perfect proof respecting the Scrip-
“‘ tures from the Scriptures themselves, persuade through faith
“ demonstratively ;’ and again ;—“ The truth is found .
“ by confirming each of the things demonstrated by the Scriptures
* from like Scriptures.” *
1 ῬΕδήλου δ᾽ ἄρα τὴν μὲν γραφὴν πρόδηλον εἶναι πᾶσι, κατὰ τὴν ψιλὴν avd-
γνωσιν ἐκλαμβανομένην: καὶ ταύτην εἶναι τὴν πίστιν στοιχείων τάξιν ἔχουσαν"
δι ὃ καὶ ἣ πρὸς τὸ γράμμα ἀνάγνωσις ἀλληγορεῖται: τὴν διάπτυξιν δὲ τὴν γνω-
στικὴν τῶν γραφῶν, προκοπτούσης ἤδη THs πίστεως εἰκάζεσθαι τῇ κατὰ τὰς συλ-
λαβὰς ἀναγνώσει ἐκδεχόμεθα. Ip. Strom. lib. vi. § 15. p. 806. (or, 679.)
2 Μόνον δύνασθαι τὸν γνωστικὸν τὰ ἐπικεκρυμμένως πρὸς τοῦ Πνεύματος εἴρη-
μένα νοήσειν τε καὶ ΟΕ Ip. Strom. lib. vi. § 15. p. 798. (or, 671.)
3 Διὰ πολλὰς τοίνυν αἰτίας ἐπικρύπτονται τὸν νοῦν αἱ Lag πρῶτον μὲν, ἵνα
(ηγτητικοὶ ὑπάρχωμεν, καὶ προσαγρυπνῶμεν ἀεὶ τῇ τῶν σωτηρίων λόγων εὑρέσει"
ἔπειτα, μηδὲ τοῖς ἅπασι οὐ λού φῦλα ἣν νοεῖν ὡς μὴ βλαβεῖεν ἑτέρως ἐκδεξάμενοι τὰ
ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος σωτηρίως εἰρημένα" διὸ δὴ τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
τοῖς τε ἐκ πίστεως εἰς γνῶσιν ἐγκρίτοις τηρούμενα τὰ ἅγια τῶν προφητειῶν μυσ-
τήρια ταῖς παραβολαῖς ἐγκαλύπτεται. Ip. Strom. lib. vi. ὃ 15. p. 803. (or, 676, 7.)
4 See p. 51 above.
232 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
And he tells us, that the Scriptures are to be expounded ac-
cording to the ecclesiastical rule, (which he calls, just before, the
rule of truth,) and that “the ecclesiastical rule is the consent
“and harmony of the Law and the Prophets with the Covenant
“ (or, Testament) delivered at the advent of our Lord.” 1
And hence he speaks elsewhere of those who “ explain the
“ truth by showing the harmony of the Covenants (or, Testa-
ἔς ments.)’’?
By which, and other passages,° it is evident, how much im-
portance Clement attributed to the interpretation of Scripture
by itself.
And the errors of heretics he justly attributes, not to the ob-
scurity of Scripture, but to their careless or wilful perversion of
the language of Scripture. “For they,” he says, “act sloth-
“ fully, who, when it is in their power to obtain from the Scrip-
“ tures themselves proofs accordant with the Divime Scriptures,
“ wholly give themselves up to choosing that which is favorable
“to their pleasures. And they are seeking after glory, as many
“as willingly corrupt the things delivered by the blessed Apos-
“ tles and Masters agreeably to the divinely-inspired words by
“ other attempts at delivering the truth, opposing the divine
“tradition by human doctrines, for the sake of constituting a
“ heresy.” 4
OriGEN. (fl. a. 230.)
I proceed to Origen, who, in his work against Celsus, says,
that as a Greek, if he wished to teach the Egyptians or Syrians,
1 Κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς, ἣ συνῳδία καὶ ἣ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν
τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ. Iv. ib. p. 808. (or,
676.)
2 τὴν ἀλήθειαν διὰ τῆς ἀκολουθίας τῶν διαθηκῶν σαφηνίζοντες. Το. Strom.
lib. vii. § 16. p. 894. (or, 760.)
3 See Strom. lib. vi. § 10. p. 781. (or, 656.)
4 Ῥαθυμοῦσι μὲν γὰρ oi, παρὸν τὰς οἰκείας ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν
γραφῶν πορίζεσθαι ἀποδείξεις, τὸ παράπαν καὶ ταῖς ἡδοναῖς αὐτῶν συναιρούμενον
ἐκλεγόμενοι. Δόξης δὲ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, ὅσοι τὰ προσφυῆ τοῖς θεοπνεύστοις λόγοις ὑπὸ
τῶν μακαρίων ᾿Αποστόλων τε καὶ διδασκάλων παραδιδόμενα, ἑκόντες εἶναι [εἶναι
Lowthio et Pottero delendum videtur] σοφίζονται, δι ἑτέρων παρεγχειρήσεων,
ἀνθρωπείαις διδασκαλίαις, ἐνιστάμενοι θεία παραδόσει, ὑπὲρ τοῦ Thy αἵρεσιν συστή-
σασθαι. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 896. (or, 762.) It seems not improbable
that instead of παραδιδόμενα we ought to read παραδιδόμενοις. But I have trans-
lated in accordance with the common reading.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 233
would in the first place learn their language, and rather speak
imperfectly like a foreigner in that language, that he might do
some good to his hearers, than by speaking Greek do them no
good, “so the Divine Nature, making provision for not those
“only who are esteemed learned among the Greeks, but the
“ rest also, condescended to the ignorance of the multitude of
“ hearers ; in order that, by using phrases to which they were
“ accustomed, it might allure the ignorant multitude to give
“ audience, who might, after an introduction had once been
“ given, be easily able to press forward to the comprehension of
“ the deeper of those hidden senses that are in the Scriptures.
“ For, to any one reading them, it is evident, that they have a
“ much deeper meaning to those who give themselves to the
“ investigation of the word, than that which appears on the
“ surface, and which is made manifest in proportion to the study
“ given to the word, and according to the exercise of his willing-
“* ness to receive it.””}
“Tf you shall at any time see a mind intelligent, quick, and
“ prompt, not [? omit not] meditating on the oracles of God,
“ know that it is not from blindness that it sees not those
“ things that are contained in the Scriptures, not because it is
“in the dark, but because it shuts its eyes.”?*
And he says that the heterodox, when reading the Scrip-
tures, reap thorns, not from the Scriptures, but from their own
imaginations.®
} Οὕτως 7 προνοουμένη θεία φύσις ob τῶν πεπαιδεῦσθαι νομιζομένων μόνον τὰ
[τῶν] Ἑλλήνων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν Ἑλλήνων, συγκατέβη τῇ ἰδιωτείᾳ τοῦ
πλήθους τῶν ἄκροωμένων' ἵνα ταῖς συνήθεσιν αὐτοῖς χρησαμένη λέξεσι προκαλέ-
σηται ἐπὶ ἀκρόασιν τὸ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν πλῆθος, δυνάμενον ἐξ εὐχεροῦς μετὰ τὴν ἅπαξ
γενομένην εἰσαγωγὴν φιλοτιμήσασθαι πρὸς τὸ καὶ βαθύτερα τῶν κεκρυμμένων
νοημάτων ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς καταλαβεῖν. Καὶ τῷ τυχόντι γὰρ δῆλον ταύτας ἄναγι-
νώσκοντι, ὅτι πολλὰ βαθύτερον τοῦ αὐτόθεν ἐμφαινομένου ἔχειν δύναται νοῦν τοῖς
ἀνατιθεῖσιν αὑτοὺς τῇ ἐξετάσει τοῦ λόγου, φανερούμενον κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς
εἰς τὸν λόγον σχολῆς, καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄσκησιν αὐτοῦ προθυμίας. ORIGEN. Contra
Cels. lib. vii. § 60. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. pp. 797, 8. A similar passage occurs in
the same work, lib. vi. § 2. pp. 629, 30.
2 « Si quando videris ingeniosam ad intelligendum animam et velocem et ala-
crem, non [? dele non] meditantem eloquia Dei, cognosce quia non propter
cecitatem non videt ea que continentur in Scripturis, non ob id quia in tenebris
sit, sed quia claudit oculos.” In. In Is. hom. 6. § 7. iii. 119.
3 Μάλιστα δέ ἐστι κατανοῆσαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ἐντυγχανόντων ταῖς γραφαῖς,
234 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
And he calls the Scripture “a perfect and harmonious instru-
“ ment of God, producing from various different notes one saving
“ strain to those who are willing to learn, assuaging and coun-
“ teracting all the power of the evil spirit.”? .
And though he holds, that there is in general a triple sense
in Scripture, yet he distinctly says, that “ the multitude of those
“‘ who faithfully and simply believe, testifies, that the Scripture
“is profitable even when interpreted in its first meaning.”?
And he earnestly exhorts all to make the Scripture their
daily study.*
Moreover, as it regards the means to be used for rightly under-
standing it, he speaks thus ;—
After having spoken of his own knowledge of its meaning
having been acquired by a studious and diligent perusal of it, he
adds,—* And others also who are willing to search the Scrip-
“‘ ture, and have understanding, may find out its meaning. It is,
“ indeed, often obscure, but not, as Celsus says, intelligible in
“ nothing. Moreover, it is not in the power of any fool or im-
“postor to make it plaim, or turn to his own purpose what is
“ said, whithersoever he may please. But it is only he who is
“truly wise in Christ, who can unfold the whole order of the
“things spoken mysteriously in the prophecies, comparing
“ spiritual things with spiritual, and confirming each of the things
« found from the phraseology customary in the Scriptures.” *
καὶ ἀκάνθας οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν, GAN’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπινοιῶν θεριζόντων. Id. In
Jerem. hom. 11. ὃ 3. iii. 189.
1*Ey yap τὸ τέλειον οἷδε καὶ ἡρμοσμένον ὄργανον τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι πᾶσαν τὴν
γραφὴν, μίαν ἀποτελοῦν ἐκ διαφόρων φθόγγων σωτήριον τοῖς μανθάνειν ἐθέλουσι.
φωνὴν, καταπαύουσαν καὶ κωλύουσαν ἐνέργειαν πᾶσαν πονηροῦ πνεύματος. ID, In
Matth. fragm. iii. 441.
2 »Απὸ μὲν οὖν τῆς πρώτης ἐκδοχῆς Kal κατὰ τοῦτο ὠφελούσης, ὅτι ἔστιν ὄνασθαι,
μαρτυρεῖ τὰ πλήθη τῶν γνησίως καὶ ἁπλούστερον πεπιστευκότων. ΤΡ. De Prine.
lib. iv. § 12. i. 169, 170. See also further confirmatory remarks to the same
effect, ib. § 14. pp. 171—173 ; and, Contra Cels. lib. iv. § 49, i. 541.
3 See, for instance, In Levit. hom. 9. § 5. ii. 240, and, In Genes. hom. 10.
§ 2. ii. 87. ;
4 Kal ἄλλοι δὲ, of βουλόμενοι ἐξετάζειν τὴν γραφὴν, νοῦν ἔχοντες τὸ γνῶμα
αὐτῆς εὑρεῖν ἂν δύναιντο" οὔσης πολλαχοῦ ἀληθῶς ἀσαφοῦς μὲν, οὐ μὴν, ὥς φησι
Κέλσος, τὸ μηδέν. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲ δύναταί τις ἀνόητος ἢ γόης ἐξομαλίσαι ἢ ὅπη ποτὲ
βούλεται τὸ λεχθὲν σφετερίσασθαι Μόνος δὲ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν ἐν Χριστῷ
σοφὺς τὸν εἰρμὸν πάντα ἀποδῴη ἂν τῶν μετ᾽ ἐπικρύψεως εἰρημένων ἐν ταῖς προφη-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 235
“ We take hold of the books and read, but we.attain not the
“ spiritual sense. And therefore there is need, that with tears
“and unceasing prayers we should beg that the Lord may open
“our eyes.... And why do[ say, that our eyes should be
“opened? For Jesus came to open the eyes of the blind.
“ Therefore our eyes are opened, and the veil is taken away from
“the letter of the law. But I fear, that we ourselves again
shut them in a sleep still more profound, while we watch
not in the spiritual understanding, nor are anxious to shake
off sleep from our eyes, and contemplate the things that are
spiritual.”’}
“41 fear, lest, by our too great carelessness and folly of heart,
the divine volumes are not only veiled to us, but also sealed
.... Whence it is manifest, not only that we must apply with
earnestness to learn the meaning of the sacred Scriptures, but
“ also that we must supplicate the Lord, and pray day and night,
“ that the Lamb of the tribe of Judah would come, and, taking
“ himself the sealed book, would condescend to open it.” *
“ For the explanation of these things we must not depend
“‘ upon the strength of the human understanding, but upon sup-
“ plications and prayers poured forth to God. In which also we
“ need your aid, that God the Father of the Word would give us
“ the word to the opening of our eyes, that we may be able to
“ behold wonderful things out of his law. [Ps. 119. 18.] ὅ
τείαις, πνευματικὰ πνευματικοῖς συγκρίνων, καὶ κατασκευάζων ἀπὸ τῆς συνηθείας
τῶν γραφῶν ἕκαστον τῶν εὑρισκομένων. ΤΡ. Contra Cels. lib. vii. § 11. i. 701, 2.
1 “Tenemus libros et legimus, sed spiritalem sensum non attingimus. Et ideo
opus est lachrymis et orationibus indesinentibus postulare, ut Dominus aperiat
oculos nostros...... Et quid dico ut aperiantur oculi nostri? Quia jam aperti
sunt. Jesus enim venit aperire oculos cecorum. Aperti ergo sunt oculi nostri,
et de litera legis velamen ablatum est. Sed vereor ne nos ipsi eos somno iterum
profundiore claudamus, dum non vigilamus in intellectu spiritali, neque solliciti
sumus ut somnum discutiamus ab oculis nostris, et contemplemur que spiritalia
sunt.” In. In Genes. hom. 7. ὃ 6. ii. 80.
2 « Ego autem vereor, ne per nimiam negligentiam et stoliditatem cordis, non
solum velata sint nobis divina volumina, sed et signata...... Unde ostenditur,
non solum studium nobis adhibendum esse ad discendas literas sacras, verum et
supplicandum Domino, et diebus ac noctibus obsecrandum, ut veniat agnus ex
tribu Jude, et ipse accipiens librum signatum dignetur aperire.” Ib. In Exod.
hom. 12. § 4. ii. 174.
5 « Ad hee explananda non humani ingenii viribus nitendum est, sed oratio-
nibus, et precibus ad Deum fusis. In quo etiam yestri adjutorio indigemus, ut
236 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ Let us entreat the Lord, &c.....that, contemplating in
“ the Holy Spirit the things that are written by the Spirit, and
“ comparing spiritual things with spiritual, we may explain the
“ things that are written, worthily of God, and the Holy Spirit
“ who inspired them.”?
“ Ye ought to know, that the things read from the sacred
“volumes are worthy of having been uttered by the Holy
“ Spirit, but we need the grace of the Holy Spirit to interpret
“them.” 4
« As Moses heard God, and then brought to the people what
“ he had heard from God, so we need the Holy Spirit to make
“ us acquainted with the mysteries [of Divine truth], that by
our prayers we may be enabled to hear the Scripture, and then
“ sionify to the people what we have heard.” ὅ
Other similar passages might easily be added.*
Hence, then, we clearly see, that Origen’s view was, not that
there were no difficulties in Scripture, (which no one supposes,)
not that even in the simplest passages there might not be a
latent meaning besides that which was upon the surface, (a
notion which, as is well known, he carried to an absurd extreme,)
but that even a reception of the first and obvious meaning was
sufficient to make a man a believer, and that a diligent study of
the Scriptures would unfold even its hidden meanings, and that
the great assistant to whom we should look for the interpretation of
it is the Holy Spirit. And nowhere does he speak so as to mo-
dify this view, except with regard to that summary of the faith
Deus Pater Verbi det nobis verbum in apertionem oris [? oculi] nostri, ut possi-
mus considerare mirabilia de lege ejus.” In. In Levit. hom. 6. ὃ 1. ii. 215.
1 “Oremus Dominum, ut nobis etiam ad cetera, que ab eo prophetata sunt,
intelligenda lucidiores quosque et veritati proximos sensus aperire dignetur, ut in
Spiritu Sancto considerantes que per Spiritum scripta sunt, et spiritalibus spi-
ritalia comparantes, digne Deo et sancto Spiritu qui hee inspiravit, que scripta
sunt explicemus.” Ib. In Num, hom. 16. ὃ 9. ii. 334.
2 « Scire debetis, digna quidem esse Sancti Spiritus eloquio que leguntur,
[i. e. “ sacrorum voluminum” ]; sed, ad explananda ea, indigemus gratia Spiritus
Sancti.” Ip. In Jos. hom. 8. ὃ 1. ii. 415.
3 « Quomodo Moses andiebat Deum, et deinde ea que a Deo audierat, pro-
ferebat ad populum ; sic nos indigemus Spiritu Sancto loquente in nobis mysteria,
ut orationibus nostris Scripturam possimus audire, et rursum quod audivimus,
populis intimare.” Ip. In Ezech. hom. 7. ὃ 10. iii. 385.
4 See, for instance, De Prine. lib. iv. § 10. i. 167.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 237
we have already noticed, for which he considered himself to have
sufficient testimony in the preaching of the Apostolical Churches.
Nay, in other points, he expressly tells us, as we have seen, that
Christians were, from the beginning, divided as to the meaning of
the sacred books. And how far that summary is of any use
against the errors of the present day, is a point to which we have
already called the attention of the reader.
Cyprian. (fl. a. 248.)
In the preface to his first two books of Scripture Testimonies,
addressed to Quirinus, in which he gives a few of the chief pas-
sages of Scripture on the principal Christian doctrines, after
stating what his work contained, he adds, “If you read these,
“ they will be of use to you for the present in forming ¢he first
“ lineaments of the faith. More strength will be given you, and
“the understanding of your heart will be more and more
“ vigorous, if you search the Scriptures of the Old and New
“ Testament more fully, and read through all the volumes of
“ the spiritual books. For, in this work, we have but filled a
“ small vessel from the divine fountains, to send to you asa
“temporary supply. You will be able to drink more freely,
“and be more fully satisfied, if you also approach to the
“same fountains of divine fulness, and drink from hence as
* we have.”’!
Is not this a reference to Scripture as the best teacher of the
Christian religion, and the source whence even the elements of the
faith were to be drawn by every one who wished to learn what
they were?
NovatiAn. (fl. a. 251.)
“ The divine Scripture,” says Novatian, “easily refutes and
exposes both the frauds and thefts of heretics.”
1 « Que legenti tibi interim prosint ad prima fidei lineamenta formanda. Plus
roboris tibi dabitur, et magis ac magis intellectus cordis operabitur, scrutanti Scrip-
turas veteres ac novas plenius, et universa librorum spiritalium volumina perle-
genti. Nam nos nunc de divinis fontibus implevimus modicum, quod tibi interim
mitteremus. Bibere uberius et saturari copiosius poteris, si tu quoque ad eosdem
divine plenitudinis fontes nobiscum pariter potaturus accesseris.” CYPRIANI
Testim. ad Quirinum. Pref. ad libr. i. andii. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. Pt.i. p.18.
2 «« Scriptura divina hereticorum et fraudes et farta facile convincit et detegit.”
Novartrant De Trin. c. 19. ed. ad fin. Tertull. Op. ed. 1664. p. 718.
238 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Grecory or Neoca#sarea. (fl. a. 254.)
“To those who search the divine oracles,” says Gregory
“of Neocesarea, “is unfolded the treasure of the knowledge
‘of God.” +
Lactrantivs. (fl. a. 303.)
“ Learned men,” says Lactantius, “accustomed to sweet and
“ polished orations and poems, despise the simple and unadorned
“ language of the divine Scriptures as contemptible .... Could
not, then, God, the maker of the mind and voice and tongue,
speak eloquently? Yes, verily, but the Supreme Providence
‘ wished those things that are divine to be clear, that all might
“ understand what he himself addressed to all.” *
“The divine Scriptures teach us the knowledge of the
truth.” ?
“ς This is the principal reason why the holy Scripture is not
“ believed among the wise and learned and the princes of this
“‘ world, that the prophets have spoken in a common and simple
“ phraseology, as addressing themselves to the people.”* We pro-
bably alludes here more especially to the prophets of the New
Testament.
“Since there have existed many heresies, and the people of
“< God have, by the instigations of evil spirits, been divided, the
“ truth is briefly to be settled by us, and placed in its own proper
“ abode; that if any one desires to draw the water of life, he
[44
[11]
oN
1 Tots ἐρευνῶσι τὰ θεῖα λόγια, ἀνακαλύπτεται ὃ θησαυρὺς τῆς TOD Θεοῦ γνώσεως.
GreGcor. Νεοσξβ. (THAuMAT.) In Annune. Serm. 2. Op. ed. Paris. 1622, p. 19.
See the whole context.
2 «ὁ Assueti enim [1. 6. homines literati] dulcibus et politis sive orationibus sive
earminibus, divinarum literarum simplicem communemque sermonem pro sordido
aspernantur. .... Num igitur Deus et mentis et vocis et lingue artifex diserte
loqui non potest? Imo vero Summa Providentia carere fuco voluit ea que divina
sunt, ut omnes intelligerent que ipse omnibus loquebatur.” Lacran?. Diy. Instit.
lib. vi. c. 21. Op. ed. Cant. 1685. p. 339. (Par. 1748. vol. i. p. 496.)
3 “Nos .... divine liter ad scientiam veritatis erudiunt.” In. ib. lib. vii, ὁ. 14.
ed. Cant. 1685. p. 383. (Par. 1748. vol. i. p. 555.)
4 « Nam hee in primis causa est, cur apud sapientes et doctos et principes hujus
seculi, Scriptura Sancta fide careat, quod Prophets communi ac simplici sermone,
ut ad populum, sunt locuti.” In. ib. lib. v. ο. 1. ed. Cant. 1685. p. 2386. (Par.
1748, vol. i. p. 361.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 239
“may not be carried away to exhausted lakes that have no
“ supply, but may know the abundant fountain of God, supplied
“ with which he may enjoy perennial light .... Some not suffi-
** ciently learned in the heavenly writings .. . . have been led astray
“ from the right path, and corrupted the heavenly writings, that
“ they might compose for themselves a new doctrine, destitute
“ of any root and stability.” +
ATHANASIUS. (fi. a. 326.)
Our next witness is Athanasius, whose views, indeed, on the
point now in question are very clearly shown in some of the
passages already quoted from him above ; where he tells us, that
“ the whole inspired Scripture teaches more clearly and fully ”
than he could;? that “the representations of the truth de-
“ rived from the Scriptures are much more exact than those
“ derived from any other source ;” * that the reader of Scripture
may “ find from the divine oracles” the Christian faith, “ for
“ the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves to
«< make known the truth ;”? * and that “the true and pious faith
“in the Lord is made evident to all, being known and read out
“ of the divine Scriptures.” ὅ
But we may add to these many other similar testimonies.
Thus, after having expounded the faith respecting the person
and incarnation of Christ, he says,—“Accept these remarks from
“ ys, treating briefly of the matter as far as regards the elements
1 “ Sed quoniam multe hereses extiterunt, et instinctibus demonum populus
Dei scissus est, determinanda est nobis veritas breviter, et in suo proprio domicilio
collocanda ; ut si quis aquam vite cupiet haurire, non ad detritos lacus deferatur,
qui non habent venam, sed uberrimum Dei noverit fontem, quo irrigatus perenni
luce potiatur .... Quidam non satis ccelestibus literis eruditi ....depravati sunt
ab itinere recto, et ccelestes literas corruperunt, ut novam sibi doctrinam sine ulla
radice ac stabilitate componerent.” In. ib. lib. iv. c. 30. ed.Cant.1685. pp. 231, 2.
(Par. 1748, vol. i. pp. 352, 353.) And to those passages we might add the fol-
lowing,—“ Ecce vox de ccelo veritatem docens, et nobis sole ipso clarius Immen
ostendens.” ib. lib. iii. c. ult. ed. Cant. 1685. p. 171. (Par. 1748. tom.i. p. 270.)
There can be little doubt to what Lactantius here refers, but as the Scriptures are
not expressly named, I have not noticed it above.
2 See p. 100, note * above.
3 See p. 101, note * above.
4 See p. 105, note 4 above.
5 See p. 109, note * above.
240 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ and outline of the faith with respect to Christ ..... But if,
“having taken occasion from these remarks, thou shouldest
“read the Scriptures, sincerely applying thy mind to them,
“thou shalt know from them, as to the points spoken of,
“ more perfectly and clearly the accuracy of what has been
saad 7?
Again; “ The Lord himself said, Search the Scriptures, they
“ are they that testify of me. How, therefore, shall they confess
“ the Lord, who do not search the Scriptures respecting him ?
“ .... Of what use are the Scriptures to him of Samosata?....
“ Of what use are the Scriptures to the Arians, and why do they
“ quote them?.... For, none of these heresies have anything
“in common with the Scriptures in the impiety of their conceits.
* And this their patrons well know.... But, in order to de-
* ceive the simple, .... they pretend to care for and speak the
“‘ words [of Scripture], like their father the devil, that from the
“use of the words they may seem to hold the right doctrine,
“and may then persuade miserable men to embrace doctrines
“ contrary to the Scriptures . . . . Any one who wished accurately
“ to discuss these points, might write much respecting them
« .,.. But since the divine Scripture is more competent than all
“ things [to teach the faith], therefore having given my advice
“to those who desire to know more concerning these things,
“to read the divine words, I have myself hastened to set forth
*‘ that which is most pressing, on which account chiefly I have
* thus written.” 2
\ Ταῦτα μέν σοι παρ᾽ ἡμῶν δι᾽ ὀλίγων, ὅσον πρὸς στοιχείωσιν καὶ χαρακτῆρα
τῆς κατὰ Χριστὺν wiorews........ Σὺ δὲ τὴν πρόφασιν ἐκ τούτων λαβὼν, εἰ
ἐντυγχάνοις τοῖς τῶν γραφῶν γράμμασι, γνησίως αὐτοῖς ἐφιστάνων τὸν νοῦν, γνώσῃ
παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὰ λεγόμενα, τελειότερον μὲν καὶ τρανότερον τῶν λεχθέντων τὴν axpl-
Bewy. ATHANAS. De incarn. Verbi Dei. § 56. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 96.
3 Ὃ δὲ Κύριος αὐτὸς ἔλεγεν, ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφὰς, ὅτι αὐταί εἶσιν af μαρτυ-
ροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ. Πῶς οὖν ὁμολογήσουσι τὸν Κύριον, μὴ προερευνῶντες τὰς περὶ
αὐτοῦ γραφάς;...... Τί τῷ Σαμοσατεῖ τὰ τῶν γραφῶν; ...... τί δὲ καὶ τοῖς
᾿Αρειανοῖς ai γραφαὶ, καὶ τί ταύτας οὗτοι προφέρουσιν ;.. .... Πρὺς μὲν γὰρ τὴν
ἰδίαν τῆς ἐπινοίας ἀσέβειαν ἑκάστη τούτων τῶν αἱρέσεων οὐδὲν κοινὸν ἔχει πρὸς τὰς
γραφάς" καὶ τοῦτο ἴσασι καὶ of τὰ τούτων πρεσβεύοντες... .. .. ἀπάτης δὲ χάριν
τῶν ἁπλουστέρων..... .. σχηματίζονται μελετᾶν καὶ λέγειν τὰς λέξεις, ὧς ὃ πατὴρ
αὐτῶν διάβολος, ἵνα ἐκ τῶν λέξεων δόξωσιν ὀρθὸν ἔχειν καὶ τὸ φρόνημα, καὶ λοιπὸν
πείσωσι παρὰ τὰς γραφὰς φρονεῖν τοὺς ταλαιπώρους ἀνθρώπους ...... Πολλὰ
μὲν οὖν ἄν τις γράψειεν, εἰ βούλοιτο περὶ τούτων ἐπεξεργάσασθαι....... Ἐπειδὴ
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 241
A more direct and unqualified contradiction to the view
of the Tractators than is contained in this passage, could not
be framed.
Again ; “ We are confident,” he says, “from the divine Scrip-
“ tures, respecting the orthodox faith, and place it as a light
** upon a candlestick.” !
“ The Scripture hath laid down such examples and images,
“in order that, since human nature is unable to comprehend
“ the things of God, we may be able, in some small and im-
“ perfect way, as far as is attainable, to know something of them.
“ And as with respect to the existence of a God and a Provi-
“* dence, creation is sufficient to give us this knowledge.... ,
“ and we do not require words to learn this from them [1. e. from
“ the things that are made], but upon hearing the Scriptures
“ believe,.....in the same way, the afore-mentioned passages
“ being sufficient with respect to the divinity of the Son, it is vain,
“ nay, rather, it is the height of madness, to doubt, and here-
“ tically to ask, How can the Son be eternal ?” *
Far from supposing, that there was any obscurity in Scrip-
ture that could be any apology for the Arians, he only blames
them for their ignorance and perverse interpretation of such
clear declarations of the truth as are to be found there.
“They,” he says, “laying down their own impious doctrine
“ as a sort of canon, pervert all the divine oracles so as to make
“them accord with it, who, while only uttering these things,
δὲ ἡ θεία γραφὴ πάντων ἐστὶν ἱκανωτέρα, τούτου χάριν τοῖς βουλομένοις τὰ πολλὰ
περὶ τούτων γινώσκειν, συμβουλεύσας ἐντυγχάνειν τοῖς θείοις λόγοις, αὐτὸς νῦν τὸ
κατεπεῖγον ἐσπούδασα δηλῶσαι, διὸ μάλιστα καὶ οὕτως ἔγραψα. Ip. Ep. ad
Epise. Hgypti et Lib. (al, Orat. i. contra Arian.) ὃ 4. i. 279, 4.
1 »Ιδοὺ γὰρ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν παῤῥησιαζόμεθα περὶ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς
πίστεως, καὶ ὡς λύχνον ἐπὶ τῆς λυχνίας τιθέαμεν. Ip. Orat. 1. contra Arian.
§ 9. i. 412.
2 τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ παραδείγματα καὶ τοιαύτας τὰς εἰκόνας ἔθηκεν ἣ γραφὴ, ἵν᾽
ἐπειδὰν ἀδύνατός ἐστιν ἣ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις περὶ Θεοῦ καταλαβεῖν, κἂν ἐκ τούτων
ὀλιγοστῶς πως καὶ ἀμυδρῶς, ὡς ἐφικτόν ἐστι, διανοεῖσθαι δυνηθῶμεν. Καὶ ὥσπερ
περὶ τοῦ εἶναι θεὸν καὶ πρόνοιαν, αὐτάρκης ἡ κτίσις πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν.. .. .. καὶ
οὐ φωνὰς ἀπαιτοῦντες παρ᾽ αὐτῶν μανθάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκούοντες μὲν τῶν γραφῶν
πιστεύομεν ....... τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον περὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητος ἱκανῶν ὄντων τῶν
προειρημένων ῥητῶν, περιττὸν, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ μανίας πλέον ἐστὶν ἀμφιβάλλειν, καὶ
αἱρετικῶς πυνθάνεσθαι, πῶς οὖν δύναται ἀϊδίως εἶναι ὃ vids; κι τ. A. Ip. Orat. 2.
contra Arian. ὃ 32. i. 500.
VOL. III. R
242 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“deserve no other answer than— Ye do err, not knowing the
“ Scriptures, nor the power of God.’ ”’!
The reason why the heretics did not confess Christ to be the
Son of God in an orthodox sense, was, according to him, their
“jonorance of the truth, and want of acquaintance with the
divine Scriptures.” *
And he says, that “they who call the Arians Christians, are
“ much and greatly deceived, as persons who have neither read
“ the Scriptures nor are at all acquainted with Christianity and
“ the faith in Christ.’’5
Lastly, on the style of Scripture phraseology, he says, that
“it is the custom of the divine Scripture to deliver and deseribe
‘things that are above human comprehension in the words of
“‘“man.”* And that “it is the custom of the Scripture to
speak in a plain and simple style of phraseology.””’
Other passages of a similar nature might easily be added.®
And the directions he gives for ascertaining the meaning of
Scripture are such as these ;—
“This doctrine will be found abundantly contained im the
“ divine oracles by him who diligently reads them, and inves-
“ tigates the time, and the persons, and the cause of the things
“ written, and so reads with judgment and discrimination. Thus,
* such a one will find out the time of this passage we are now
* considering, and will understand that the Lord, having ex-
1 Qs κανόνα τινὰ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσέβειαν θέμενοι, πρὸς τοῦτον πάντα τὰ θεία λόγια
διαστρέφουσιν' οἵ τινες καὶ μόνον αὐτὰ φθεγγόμενοι, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἀκούειν εἰσὶν
ἄξιοι, ἢ, Πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς, μηδὲ τὴν δυναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. In. Orat.
1. contra Arian. § 52. i. 457.
2 Td δὲ εἶναι τοῦτον τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸν οὐχ ὁμολογοῦσιν" ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τῆς ἀλη-
θείας ἀγνωσία, καὶ τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἀπειρία. ID. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 17.
1, 222.
3 Of τούτους [i. 6. ᾿Αρειανοὺς καλοῦντες Χριστιανοὺς, πολὺ καὶ λίαν πλανῶνται,
ὡς μήτε τὰς γραφὰς ἀνεγνωκότες, μήτε ὅλως εἰδότες τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν καὶ τὴν ἐν
αὐτῷ πίστιν. Ip. Orat. 1. contra Arian. § 1. i. 406.
4 Ἔθος yap TH θείᾳ γραφῇ, ἀνθρωπίνως τὰ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον λαλεῖν καὶ σημαίνειν.
Ip. Orat. 4. contra Arian. § 27. i. 638.
5 Ἔθος δὲ τοῦτο τῇ γραφῇ, ἀπεριέργως καὶ ἁπλῶς τὰς λέξεις exppd ew. In.
Orat. 4. contra Arian. § 33. i. 642.
6 See Orat. 3. contra Arian. § Li. 551. A. ib. § 15. i. 564. B. Epist. 1.
ad Serap. ὃ 13. i. 661. E. ib. ὃ 20. i. 669. B.C. Also, Psevpo-ATHANAS.
Disp. cum Ario, § 48, says, Αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ πάντα σαφῆ διαλέγονται. Op. tom. ii.
p. 228.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 243
“sted from eternity, afterwards at the end of times became
* man,” &e.!
“ Tt is right, as it behoves us to do in the case of the whole
“divine Scripture, and as, indeed, is necessary, so here also,
“ faithfully to ascertain the time of which the Apostle spoke,
“and the person and the thing on account of which he wrote,
“that the reader may not, by ignorance of these things, or of
““ some other similar matter, err from the true meaning.” And
having noticed some who had not attended to this, he adds,—
“Such, therefore, in truth, having been the case with the
“ enemies of Christ, they have fallen away into grievous heresy.
“ For, if they had known both the person and the thing, and
“the time of the Apostle’s words, they would not, by under-
“ standing what was spoken of his human nature as applying
“to his divinity, have madly reached such a height of im-
ay Ca aided
These are the practical directions he gives for ascertaining
the meaning of Scripture. And his words clearly show, that
he considered that it needed only the proper use of these means
to discover the sense of Scripture. On all points, then, the
testimony of Athanasius is wholly with us.
Antnony. (fl. a. 330.)
Among others, let us hear the testimony of the pious Anthony
respecting the sufficiency of Scripture for teaching the faith.
In one of his addresses to the monks who had associated them-
1 Thy δὲ διάνοιαν ταύτην εὑρήσει καλῶς ἐν τοῖς λογίοις κειμένην ὃ μὴ πάρεργον
ἡγούμενος τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καιρὸν καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα καὶ τὴν χρείαν τῶν
γεγραμμένων ἐρευνῶν, καὶ οὕτω τὰ ἀναγνώσματα διακρίνων καὶ διανοούμενος. Τὸν
μὲν οὖν καιρὸν τοῦ ῥητοῦ τούτου εὑρήσει καὶ γνώσεται, ὅτι, ἀεὶ ὧν ὁ Κύριος, ὕστερον
ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, κι τ. A. Inv. De decret. Nic. Syn.
§ 14. i. 220.
2 Δεῖ δὲ, ds ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς θείας γραφῆς προσήκει ποιεῖν, καὶ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν,
οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα, καθ᾽ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ ἀπόστολος καιρὸν, καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον, καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα,
διόπερ ἔγραψε, πιστῶς ἐκλαμβάνειν, ἵνα μὴ παρὰ ταῦτα ἢ καὶ παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι τούτων
ἀγνοῶν 6 ἀναγινώσκων, ἔξω τῆς ἀληθινῆς διανοίας yévnta...... Τοιαῦτα δὴ οὖν
καὶ οἱ Χριστομάχοι παθόντες, εἰς μυσαρὰν αἵρεσιν ἐκπεπτώκασιν. Ei γὰρ ἐγνώ-
κεισαν τό τε πρόσωπον καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ ῥητοῦ, οὐκ
ἂν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα εἰς τὴν θεότητα ἐκλαμβάνοντες, τοσοῦτον ἠσέβουν οἱ ἄφρονες. Lv.
‘Orat. 1. contra Arian. §§ 54, 55. i. 458, 9.
R 2
244 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
selves with him, as recorded by Athanasius, he commences by
saying, —“ THE ScRIPTURES ARE SUFFICIENT TO TEACH US;
“ but it is well for us to exhort one another in the faith, and
animate one another by discourse.”?
Cyrit oF JERUSALEM. (fl. a. 350.)
I proceed to Cyril of Jerusalem, for whose opinion as to the
sufficiency of Scripture for teaching the faith, we may note the
following passages.
After having given an account of the principal articles of the
Christian faith, as taught by Scripture, proceeding to discuss
the remaining elementary points, he says, “ But the inspired
“ Scriptures of the Old and New Testament teach us these
“ things.”? And accordingly, in the latter part of the same
Lecture, he says,—“ Fortify thy soul in every way, attending
“ diligently to fastings, works of charity, and the perusal of the
“ divine oracles, that living the rest of thy time in the flesh with
“‘ temperance, and in the acknowledgment of the pure doctrines
“ of Christianity, thou mayest enjoy the one salvation of the
“fone. =
Again ;—“ Go to the bee, and learn how laborious it is ; how,
“ flying from flower to flower of every kind, it produces honey
“ for thy profit ; that thou also thyself, going through the divine
“ Scriptures, may obtain thy own salvation; and being filled
“ with these divine Scriptures may say, ‘ How sweet are thy
“ words unto my taste, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb
“ to my mouth.’” 4
1 Τὰς μὲν γραφὰς ἱκανὰς εἶναι mpd [πρὸς διδασκαλίαν: ἡμᾶς δὲ καλὸν παρα-
καλεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐν τῇ πίστει, καὶ ἀλείφειν ἐν τοῖς λόγοι. ANTON. Mon. ad
Monach. in ΑΤΉΑΝΑΒ. Vita Anton. ὃ 106. ΑΤΉΑΝΑΒ. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. Pt. 2.
p- 808. (ed. Colon. 1686. tom. ii. p. 461.)
2 Ταῦτα δὲ διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς ai θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ τῆς παλαιᾶς τε καὶ Kawijs
διαθήκης. ΟὙΙΠ1.. ΗΤΕΒΟΒ. Cat. 4. § 20. Op. ed. Milles. Oxon. 1708. p. 68.
3 Παντοίως τὴν σεαυτοῦ ψυχὴν ἀσφαλίζου, νηστείαις προσέχων, ἐλεημοσύναις,
καὶ θείων λογίων ἀναγνώσμασιν, ἵνα μετὰ σωφροσύνης καὶ δογμάτων εὐσεβῶν τὸν
ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιώσας χρόνον τῆς μιᾶς τοῦ λουτροῦ σωτηρίας ἀπολαύσῃς. ID.
Cat. 4. § ult. p. 68.
4 Πορεύθητι πρὸς τὴν μέλισσαν, καὶ μάθε ὡς ἐργάτις ἐστί: πῶς ἄνθη παντοῖα
περιτρέχουσα, συντίθησί σοι πρὸς ὠφέλειαν τὸ μέλι: ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς περιερχόμενος
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK, 245
Again; “But for the future let us go to the divine Scrip-
“tures, and drink waters from our own cisterns, the holy
*‘ fathers, and from the fountain of our own wells. Let us
“ drink from living water springing up into eternal life.” +
Again; “ For the time would fail me in my discourse, if I
“wished to speak of the points that remain respecting the
“‘ Holy Spirit from the fourteen Epistles of Paul, in which, in
“various ways, and with a fulness that has omitted nothing,
“ and in the fear of God, he has taught us [the faith.] But
** may it be the office of the power of the Holy Spirit himself
*‘ to grant to us pardon for the things which we have omitted on
** account of the shortness of the days, and to infuse into you
“‘ my hearers a more perfect knowledge of the things omitted ;
“ the studious among you learning these things from a more fre-
“ quent reading of the divine Scriptures ; and now also from these
“ present catechetical lectures, and from what 1 have before
“ spoken, having a firmer faith, that is, faith in one God the
“ Father Almighty,” &c.?
Hitary oF Porctiers. (fl. a. 854.)
“When,” saith Hilary of Poictiers, “ after a long night of igno-
* vance, after the ambiguous and uncertain teaching of human
“ opinions, after the various views of different religions, man
“has long been in error and inquiring respecting God...
“every prudent man having betaken himself ¢o the Prophets
τὰς θείας γραφὰς, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σωτηρίας περιδράξῃ, καὶ τούτων ἐμφορούμενος εἴπῃς,
‘Os γλυκέα τῷ λάρυγγί μοι τὰ λόγιά σου" ὑπὲρ μέλι καὶ κηρίον τῷ στόματί μου.
Ip. Cat. 9. § 6. p. 121.
1 Λοιπὸν δὲ εἰς τὰς θείας γραφὰς ἐπανέλθωμεν, Kal πίνωμεν ὕδατα ἀπὸ ἡμετέρων
ἀγγείων, ἁγίων πατέρων, καὶ ἀπὸ ἡμετέρων φρεάτων mnyis πίνωμεν ἀπὸ ὕδατος
ζῶντος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, x. τ. A. Ip. Cat. 16, ὃ 5. p. 228.
2 ἘἘπιλείψει γάρ με διηγούμενον 6 χρόνος, εἰ ἐβουλόμην λέγειν τὰ λείποντα περὶ
ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκ τῶν Παύλου τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἐπιστολῶν, ἐν αἷς ποικίλως, καὶ
ἀνελλιπῶς, καὶ εὐλαβῶς ἐδίδαξεν. Ἔργον δ᾽ ἂν εἴῃ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου
Πνεύματος, ἡμῖν μὲν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐνελλείπομεν, διὰ τὸ τῶν ἡμερῶν ὀλίγον δοῦναι συγ-
γνώμην, ὑμῖν δὲ τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς τῶν λειπόντων τελειοτέραν ἐνθεῖναι τὴν γνῶσιν
τῶν σπουδαίων ἐν ὑμῖν ex τῆς πυκνοτέρας τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἀναγνώσεως ταῦτα
μανθανόντων, ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν παρουσῶν τούτων κατηχήσεων, καὶ ex τῶν πρότερον
εἰρημένων ἡμῖν βεβαιοτέραν τὴν πίστιν ἐχόντων, τῶν [? Thy] εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα
παντοκράτορα, κ. τ. A. Ip. Cat. 17. § 16. p. 257.
,
246 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ and Apostles will have obtained the knowledge of the whole
“law of God, under the mystery of its eternal arrangement.”
And having added a brief statement of the faith which is thus
learned, he says,—‘“ And then this mystery of piety being re-
“ ceived, being placed in the light of knowledge after the night
“ of ignorance, he thus speaks, ‘Shall not my soul be subject
“unto God? For from him cometh my salvation,’ &c.
(OpPsilsas. Ty 2pe
“ We must first act according to the commands of God ; then
“his ways are to be considered; for unless the practice of
“ faithful works shall have gone before, the knowledge of doc-
“ trine will not be attained; and we must first act obediently
“that we may obtain knowledge. His ‘ways,’ therefore, we
“ consider to mean, according to our former exposition, the
“ Law, the Prophets, all the Gospels and the Apostles [1. e. the
“ books of the Old and New Testament.]” ?
“Salvation is far from the wicked, because they have not
“ sought the statutes of God; since for no other purpose were
“ they consigned to writing, than that they should come within the
“ knowledge and conceptions of all without exception.” ὃ
“The word of God [speaking expressly of Scripture] has
“ consulted the benefit of all who shall ever live, beimg itself
“ the best adapted to promote the instruction of mankind in every
[1 age.’’*
1 “Cum post multam inscientiz noctem, post ambiguam humanarum sententi-
arum incertamque doctrinam, post diversarum religionum variam opinionem, cum
diu erratum quesitumque de Deo sit .... prudens quisque conversus ad Prophetas
atque Apostolos, Dei legem omnem sub sacramento zeternz dispositionis perceperit
....ac tum, hoc sacramento pietatis accepto, post ignorationis noctem in scientiz
lumine collocatus, ita dicit,” ete. Hitar. Picrav. in Ps. 61. (al. 62.) § 2. Op. ed.
Ben. col. 146, 7.
2 « Prius exercendum est in mandatis Dei, tum deinde vie ejus considerande ;
quia nisi fidelium operum usus precesserit, doctrine cognitio non apprehendetur ;
et agendum a nobis antea fideliter est, ut scientiam consequamur. Vias ergo,
secundum superiorem expositionem, Legem, Prophetas, omnia Evangelia et Apos-
tolos esse existimamus.” Ip. in Ps. 118. (al. 119.) Litt. 2. § 10. col. 255.
3 « Ob id longe a peccatoribus salus est, quia non exquisierunt justificationes
Dei, cum non utique ob aliud consignate litteris maneant, quam ut ad univer-
sorum scientiam notionemque defluerent.” Ip. in Ps. 118. (al. 119.) litt. 20. ὃ 5.
col. 359.
4. “Universis qui in vitam venirent, Dei sermo consuluit, universe stati ipse
aptissimus ad profectum.” Ip. Prolog. in Cant. quind. grad. § 4. col. 368.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 247
“ The only-begotten God, conscious of his own nature, de-
clares the ineffable mystery of his nativity, for the confession
of our faith, with the greatest possible fulness that words would
“admit of, that he might be understood to be born, and yet
“ believed to be in the nature of God.” !
“For the discourses of man concerning the things of God,
there are left to us no other words than those of God ; all
other are both narrow and confined, and embarrassed and ob-
secure. If any one desires to describe this matter im any
other words than those in which it is declared by God, either he
does not himself understand it, or he leaves it unintelligible to
“ὁ the reader.” 5
“ Tt ought first to be known, that God has not spoken to him-
self but to us, and has so adapted his words to our intelligence,
as to enable the infirmity of our nature to receive and understand
ἐπε λοι; 2
“ Therefore God providing for the infirmity of man has not
““ taught the faith by bald words of doubtful meaning .... 1 ask
what other fitter words he could have used to make us under-
“ stand his meaning, that he and the Father should be under-
“« stood to be one, than, &c. [quoting John x. 30].” *
“ The Lord has declared the faith of the gospel with the
greatest possible simplicity of words ; and has adapted his lan-
‘* guage to our intelligence, as far as the infirmity of our nature
“ could bear.” ὅ
1 «ὁ Unigenitus igitur Deus nature in se sux conscius, nativitatis propriz inenar-
rabile sacramentum, ad fidei tamen nostre confessiouem, quanta potest verborum
absolutione significat, ut et natus intelligatur et in Dei natura esse credatur,” etc.
Ip. ib. lib. vii. § 22. col. 930.
2 «Non relictus est hominum eloquiis de Dei rebus alius preter quam Dei
sermo: omnia reliqua et arta et conclusa et impedita sunt et obscura. Si quis
aliis verbis demonstrare hoc- quam quibus a Deo dictum est, volet, aut ipse non
intelligit, aut legentibus non intelligendumerelinquit.” Ip. ib. lib. vii. § 38.
col. 942.
3 « Primum cognosci oportet, Deum non sibi sed nobis locutum, et in tantum ad
intelligentiam nostram eloquii sui temperasse sermonem, quantum comprehendere
ad sentiendum nature nostre possit infirmitas.” Ip. ib. lib. viii. ὃ 43. col. 973.
4 «Consulens itaque humane infirmitati Deus, non incerta verborum nuditate
fidem docuit .. .. quero quo alio ad intelligentize nostra sensum expositionis suze
uti potuerit aptiore sermone, ut unum esse intelligerentur, quam,” ete. Ib. ib.
§ 52. col. 978.
5 « Quanta potuit Dominus verborum simplicitate evangelicam fidem locutus
248 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“The Apostolical words have not a meaning incautiously
“expressed, or one that is doubtful, so as to give room for
“ impiety.” +
Hence, so far from thinking it necessary to appeal to “ Tra-
dition,” because the heretics quoted Scripture, he says, “The
“‘ meaning of those very declarations must be produced from the
“ declarations themselves, that the truth may there be found
“‘ where it is denied. For, the things that are spoken by divine
“ inspiration simply and to teach us the faith, are necessarily so
“ spoken, that, for that for which they are spoken, they cannot
“be confirmed by the testimonies of declarations foreign to
< them 22
He makes Scripture the Judge, for the very reason, that
heretics quoted it as in their favor.
And the reason he gives for heretical misinterpretations of
Scripture is, not its obscurity, but that what is read is adapted
to a meaning, rather than a meaning adapted to what is read. ὃ
Many other passages of a like nature might easily be added. *
Moreover, on the means of attaining a knowledge of the true
sense of Scripture, he speaks thus,—
After speaking of the Law being understood by Christians,
he adds—“ This perhaps may be thought bold. It is indeed
“ bold, if we take this glory to ourselves, if we think so much
“το be within the power of our infirmity, that with respect to
“ things hidden for so long a time, obscure to so many ages of
“ the human race, in seeking to attain the sense of which kings
“have laboured in vain, doctors and teachers of the law have
est ; et in tantum ad intelligentiam nostram sermones aptavit, in quantum nature
nostre ferret infirmitas.” In. ib. lib. ix. § 40. col. 1010.
1 « Non incautis neque ad occasionem impietatis incertis significationibus sermo
apostolicus loquitur.” In. lib. xi. ὃ 17. col. 1092.
2 « Korum ipsorum dictorum ratio ex his ipsis dictis afferatur ; ut illic veritas
reperiatur, ubi negatur. Qu enim simpliciter et ad eruditionem fidei divinitus
dicta sunt, necesse est ita dicta sint, ut ad id [ad] quod dicta sunt non alienorum
atque extrinsecus dictorum confirmentur exemplis.” In. ib. ὃ 7. col. 1086.
3 “ Nec negari possit, ex vitio male intelligentia, fidei exstitisse dissidium, dum
quod legitur sensui potius coaptatur quam lectioni sensus obtemperat.”’ In. ib. lib.
vii. § 4. col. 917.
4 See in Psalm 118. [119.] litt. 1. ὃ 7. col. 246. Ib. litt. 14. § 2. col. 821, 2. In
Psalm. 135. ὃ 2. col. 482. De Trin. lib. iv. ὃ 17. col. 8388. Ib. lib. vi. § 19.
col. 890, 1.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 249
“ themselves erred, we that are fools in the eyes of the world,
“ the offscouring of the earth and madmen to the wise, should
“boast of understanding them. But yet we do understand
“them ; because he is faithful who said, ‘ Ask and it shall be
“given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be
“ opened unto yow’.... It is not therefore of ourselves that
“ we understand, but of him who hath given us to understand
“ those things which were beyond our knowledge. Therefore
“ understanding is to be looked for from him, who will both open to
“ those who knock, and will show to those who inquire, and will
“ not refuse those that ask.” }
“ It is a matter requiring great diligence to consider the force
* of the words used, and to know what belongs to each thing in
“ the meaning of what is said... . In the divine Scriptures ....
* if an impious ear and a rustic mind should hear them, it may
* neglect them as useless and unnecessary, but if a hearer or
“ reader, earnestly desirous of the knowledge of God, shall have
“‘ approached them, whose frequent reading and gift of spiritual
*€ grace shall have given him knowledge to discern and under-
* stand the several matters contained therein, he will admire
“ every thing, and will use them according to their proper powers
“ and qualities,” &c.?
1 « Hoe forte insolens existimetur. Plane insolens est, si nobis hance gloriam
presumimus, si tantum infirmitati nostre licere volumus, ut tantis temporibus
abstrusa, tantis humani generis obscura zetatibus, in quibus intelligendis frustra
reges laboraverint, ipsi doctores et magistri legis erraverint, nos stulti szculo
et purgamenta mundi et deliramenta sapientibus eorum intelligentiam gloriemur.
Sed tamen intelligimus ; quia non mendax est qui dixit, Petite et dabitur vobis ;
quzerite et invenietis, pulsate et aperietur vobis. .... Non ergo ex nobis est quod
intelligimus, sed ex eo qui qu ignorabilia erant fecit intelligi. Itaque ab eo
speranda intelligentia est, qui et pulsantibus aperiet, et querentibus demonstrabit,
et petentibus non negabit.” Ip. In Ps. 125. ὃ 2. col. 407.
2 « Magne diligentie res est, virtutem verborum collocatorum expendere, et
scire quid cuique rei sub eorum que dicta sunt significatione sit proprium.....
“In divinis Scripturis ....si eas impia auris et mens rustica audiat, tamquam
otiosas et non necessarias negligat; at vero si calens ad cognitionem Dei auditor
aut lector adstiterit, et cui frequens lectio et spiritalis gratis donum scientiam
dijudicandi singula intelligendique prestiterit, mirabitur omnia, atque his se-
cundum naturales eorum virtutes et efficientias utetur .. .. collatis et virtutibus et
temporibus et rebus, non imperite his quz 5101 comperta fuerint utatur.” Ip, In
Ps. 184. ὃ 1. col. 468.
250 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ Heis the best reader [of the Scriptures], who looks for the
“ meaning of the words from the words, rather than imposes a
“ meaning upon them, and takes away a sense, rather than brings
“it ; nor forces upon the words the appearance of that sense whach,
“ before reading, he presumed to be the meaning.” +
“ We trust, therefore, that thou, O God, wilt give an im-
“ pulse to the commencement of this fearful undertaking, and
“ strengthen us in its progress, and call us to communion with
“ the prophetic or apostolic spirit, that we may understand their
“words in no other sense than that in which they uttered
“ them, &c..... Grant us, therefore, the knowledge of the
“meaning of the words, the light of intelligence, the force of
“ the statements, the true faith, &c.”’?
** Let us from the words look for the sense, from the sense let
“ us gather the purport, and from the purport let us apprehend
ἐς the truth.” §
“ Let us seek the meaning in the followig context. For the
“« faith is to be derived not from our will, but from the force of
“ the words.” *
“ The meaning of the words must be sought, either from what
“‘ goes before, or from what follows.” ὃ
“ The man of the world does not comprehend the faith of the
“ Apostle; and no other words than his own explain the declara-
“ trons in which he has expressed his views.’ ὅ
1 “Optimus lector est, qui dictorum intelligentiam exspectet ex dictis potius
quam imponat, et retulerit magis quam attulerit; neque cogat id videri dictis
contineri, quod ante lectionem presumserit intelligendum.” In. De Trin. lib. i.
§ 18. col. 776, 7.
2 « Exspectamus ergo, ut trepidi hujus ccepti exordia incites, et profectu accre-
scente confirmes, et ad consortium vel prophetalis vel apostolici spiritus voces: ut
dicta eorum non alio quam ipsilocuti sunt sensu apprehendamus, ete. .... Tribue
ergo nobis verborum significationem, intelligentize lumen, dictorum honorem,
veritatis fidem, etc.” In. ib. § 38. col. 786.
3 « Ex yverbis sensum sequamur, ex sensu rationem intelligamus, et ex ratione
veritatem apprehendamus.” Ip. ib. lib. v. ὃ 7. col. 858.
4 “ Tntelligentiz igitur sensum in consequentibus requiramus. Non enim fides
ex arbitrio nostro, sed ex dictorum est ineunda virtutibus.” Ib. ib. lib. vii.
§ 38. col. 939.
5 “Dictorum intelligentia aut ex prapositis aut ex consequentibus expetatur.”
Ip. ib. lib. ix. § 2. col. 985.
5 “ Apostolicam fidem sculi homo non capit, et sensus sui dicta alius preter
quam ipsius sermo non explicat.” Ib. ib. ὃ 10. col. 990.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 251
“ Nor, in truth, would human infirmity carry itself forward
“ to the knowledge of heavenly things, if it were not taught to
‘ understand the divime and inscrutable nature, by God bestowing
“ upon itthe gift of knowledge, through the teaching of the Spirit.”
Another similar passage we have already quoted in a previous
section of this chapter.”
Such are the statements of Hilary on the means by which the
sense of Scripture is to be ascertained.
Eprexantivs. (fl. a. 368.)
The testimony of Epiphanius is worthy of especial notice, as
peculiarly clear and strong in favor of the views for which we
contend.
“ The Scripture,” he says, “ always endeavouring to preserve
“ men from falling into extremes, leads the mind, from every
“ quarter, into the middle path of truth. . . . the whole Scripture
“ sets before us with clearness the right path with respect to
“truth? 5
“ You see how clear all things are relating to the truth, and
‘‘ no contradiction in the Scripture.” +
Again ; having pointed out various texts of Scripture in refu-
tation of the Arian heresy, he says, “You see that all things
“ velating to Christ are easy, and nothing in them perplexed.” ὃ
“ The divine Scripture is ifegiving, and has nothing to offend
“ the faithful, or that can palliate blasphemy against the Word.” ©
1 “Nec sane humana infirmitas in ccelestem scientiam se ipsa proveheret, nisi
Deo donum scientiz per doctrinam Spiritus largiente ad cognitionem divine et
imperspicabilis nature erudiretur.” Ip. In Ps. 118. [119.] lit. 12. § 1. col. 309.
2 See p. 115 above.
3 ᾿Αεὶ γὰρ. ἢ γραφὴ ἀσφαλιζομένη τὰς κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον πτώσεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐκ
πανταχόθεν τὸν νοῦν συνάγει ἐπὶ τὴν μέσην τῆς ἀληθείας 636v...... Τῆς πάσης
γραφῆς σαφῶς περὶ ἀληθείας ἡμῖν τὴν ὁδὸν ὑποτιθεμένης. ΕΡΙΡΗΑΝ. De Heres.
her. 57. Noet. § 10. Op. ed. Paris. 1622. vol. i. p. 488.
4 ὋὉρᾷς ὡς πάντα τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας σαφῆ ὑπάρχει, Kal οὐδὲν ἐναντίον ἐν τῇ
γραφῇ. Ip. Ib. her. 66. Manich. § 41. i. 654.
> “OpGs ὅτι πάντα τοῦ Χριστοῦ λεῖα, kal οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς στραγγαλιῶδες. ID.
ib. her. 69. Arian. § 38. i. 760.
6 Τῆς θείας γραφῆς, (ωτικῆς οὔσης, καὶ μηδὲν ἐχούσης cis πρόσκομμα πιστοῖς, ἢ
εἰς ἐλάττωμα βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν Λόγον. Ip. ib. her. 69. Arian. § 39. i. 762.
232 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Epiphanius, then, knew nothing of the doctrine that Scripture
is so ambiguous, that an Arian may, without any offence against
sound reason, find his errors there.
Again ; in reply to the same heretics, he says,— And thus
“ all things are clear and perspicuous, and no contradiction, nor
“ anything at all tending to involve us in fatal error, as these
“ men, in their wicked imaginations, pretend.” !
And a little further on he tells us, how their errors arose,
namely, from their “ not taking what is said as it was spoken,
“ but putting an erroneous meaning upon it from their own
“ fancies, and, from what is said, giving to that which is cor-
“ rectly spoken a false interpretation, in accordance with their
“ own erroneous conceits.” * Their fault was, not in their
supposing that Scripture was expressed in sufficiently plain terms
for them to understand what it meant, but that they were not
contented to take Scripture as they found it, and interpret it in
its obvious sense, but strained it to their own conceits.
Again; still more clearly, while replying to the same here-
tics, — Observe, O ye servants of Christ, and sons of the holy
** Church of God, and the orthodox faith, that there is nothing
“ difficult in the divine Scripture, nothing obscure, but all things
“are marvellously written, and rendered perfect, to forward our
“© salvation.” ὃ
Again ;—“ All things are clear in the divine Scripture to those
““ who are willing to come to the divine word with a pious mind ;
“ and not having cherished within themselves a diabolical spirit
“ to hurl themselves headlong into the depths of death.” 4
1 Kal οὕτω πάντα ἐστὶ σαφῆ καὶ διαυγῆ, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον, οὐδὲ θανάτου mapa-
πλοκῆς ἔχον εἶδος ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, ὡς οὗτοι προφασίζονται, πονηρὰ ἑαυτοῖς
ἐπινοοῦντες. In. ib. § 55.1. 778.
2 Οὐ καθὼς εἴρηται τὸ ῥητὸν ἔχοντες, ἀλλὰ κακῶς ὑπονοοῦντες, καὶ ἀπὸ ῥητοῦ
Td καλῶς εἰρημένον κατὰ τὴν κακὴν αὐτῶν ὑπόνοιαν παρερμηνεύοντες. LD. ib. § 56.
i. 778.
3 Ὁρᾶτε Χριστοῦ θεράποντες, καὶ υἱοὶ τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ὄρθο-
δόξου πίστεως, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ σκολιὸν, οὐδὲ στραγγαλιῶδες, ἀλλὰ τὰ
πάντα θαυμασίως εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν γέγραπται καὶ τετελείωται. ID. ib.
§ 60. i. 787.
4 Πάντα γὰρ σαφῆ ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ τοῖς βουλομένοις εὐσεβεῖ λογισμῷ προσέρ-
χεσθαι τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ, καὶ μὴ διαβολὴν [δίαβολικὴν, Petav.] ἐνέργειαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
ἐγκισσήσαντας ἑαυτοὺς καταστρέφειν εἰς τὰ βάραθρα τοῦ θανάτου. ID. ib. her.
76. Anom. § 7. i. 920.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 253
“ Everything that is in the divine Scripture, and everything
“ that concerns the holy faith, is /ucid to us, and nothing difficult,
“ or contradictory, or obscure.” ἢ
“ For God is come, and the divine Scriptures explain all
“ things to us clearly; for there is nothing in them difficult or
“ obscure.” 3
And from these Scriptures Epiphanius learnt the true faith,
for he says, “ The true faith, as preached everywhere, is declared
“ to be this, as J at least conceive, having been taught it from the
“ Scriptures, that there are three holy ones,” &c.*
And the requisites, the only requisites to which he adverts,
for the right understanding of these Scriptures, are the careful
study of them, and the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit.
Thus he speaks on these points.
Respecting the former, thus ;—“ All the divine words,” he
says, “ are not to be understood allegorically, but to be taken in
“ their proper sense ; but they need to be considered and appre-
“ hended, that we may know the force of each argument.” 4
Respecting the latter, he speaks constantly ; not as our oppo-
nents do, as if the teaching of the Holy Spirit was only to be
expected through the teaching of the Church, but as an opera-
tion upon the heart of the individual, leading him into the know-
ledge of the truth.
This Spirit, he tells us, will enlighten the diligent reader of
the Scriptures. ‘ Search,” he says, “ the divine Scriptures, and
“learn the meaning of the Holy Spirit; and the Spirit itself
“‘ that knows the Father and the Son, will reveal to thee the
“ knowledge of the Word, the Son of God, that you may not
** wander from the truth, and lose your own soul.” ®
1 Πάντα ἡμῖν φωτεινὰ τὰ τῆς θείας γραφῆς, Kal τὰ τῆς ἁγίας πίστεως, καὶ
οὐδὲν σκολιὸν, ἢ ἐναντίον, ἢ στραγγαλιῶδες. ΤΡ. ib. p. 975.
3 Ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ ἦλθε, καὶ εἰς [? dele cis] πάντα ἡμῖν σαφηνίζουσιν αἱ θεῖαι γρα-
gal. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν αὐταῖς ἐστὶ σκολιὸν, ἢ στραγγαλιῶδες. ΤΡ. Ancorat. § 41. ii. 46.
3 Πιστὴ δὲ 7 καθόλου κηρύκων φωνὴ, αὕτη σημαίνεται, ds ἔγώ γε οἶμαι, κατη-
χούμενος ἐκ γραφῶν, τρία ἅγια, κ- τ. A. In. ib. § 67. ii. 71.
4 Πάντα τὰ θεῖα ῥήματα οὐκ ἀλληγορίας- δεῖται, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἔχει" θεωρίας δὲ δεῖται,
καὶ αἰσθήσεως, εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι ἑκάστης ὑποθέσεως τὴν δύναμιν. Ip. Ady. Heres.
her. 61. Apostol. § 6. i. 510, 11.
5 Ἐρεύνησον Tas θείας γραφὰς, kal μάθε τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὴν δύναμιν, καὶ
αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ γινῶσκον τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸν Ὑἱὸν, ἀποκαλύπτει [ὃ ἀποκα-
4
254 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
But by those who have not received the enlightening influence
of the Spirit, the Scriptures are not understood. “The divine
“ words being spoken by the Holy Spirit, are not understood by
ἐς those who have not received the gift and grace of the Holy
‘\Spuit? +
For he is the only effectual teacher ; “The Holy Spirit... .
“ that teaches all things, that witnesses concerning the Son, that
“ proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is the only guide
“ to truth, the interpreter of the holy laws, the teacher of the spiri-
“ tual law,” &c.?
Hence he gives us the exhortation,—“ Let us understand the
“ meaning of the Scripture, that the letter may not become
“ death to us. For, saith he, [1. 6. the Apostle] the letter
* killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. Let us receive the Spirit,
“ that we may be profited by the letter. The letter doth not
“loll; in the letter is life. But it will kill him who comes
“‘ without understanding to the letter, and that has not the re-
“ vealing Spirit opening the letter, and unfolding that which is
“ contained in 1. 5 From which we may observe, that this
spiritual influence is not a thing of which all baptized persons
are possessed, but a peculiar influence vouchsafed for a par-
ticular purpose, of which they may be destitute.
Hence, lastly, he speaks thus of the dispositions and qua-
lifications necessary for a right understanding of the Scrip-
tures :—
Writing against the Noetians, he says, “ But, in every respect,
“to one who possesses a mind inclined towards God, and is
λύψει] σοι THY τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Tiod τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν" ἵνα μὴ πλανηθῇς τῆς ἀληθείας,
καὶ ἀπολέσῃς τὴν σεαυτοῦ ψυχήν. Ip. Ancorat. ὃ 19. tom. ii. p. 25.
1 Ἔστι θεῖα τὰ ῥήματα Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ λεγόμενα, ἄγνωστα δὲ τοῖς μὴ εἰληφόσι
Πνεύματος ἁγίου δωρεὰν καὶ χάριν. ΤΡ. Adv. heres.; her. 69. Arian. § 43. i. 766.
2 τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Gyiov...... τὸ διδάσκον τὰ πάντα, τὸ μαρτυροῦν περὶ τοῦ Tiod, ὃ
παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὺς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ, μόνος ὁδηγὸς ἀληθείας, νόμων ἐξηγητὴς ἁγίων,
πνευματικοῦ νόμου ὑφηγητὴ5, K.T.A. Ip. Ancorat. § 73. ii. 78.
3 Νοήσωμεν τὴν δύναμιν τῆς γραφῆς, ἵνα μὴ γένηται ἡμῖν τὸ γράμμα θάνατος.
Τὸ γράμμα γὰρ, φησὶ, ἀποκτείνει: τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ, Λάβωμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα,
ἵνα ὠφεληθῶμεν ἐκ τοῦ γράμματος. Οὐ γράμμα ἀποκτείνει, ἐν τῷ γράμματι 7
ζωή. ᾿Αποκτένει δὲ τὸν ἀσύνετως τῷ γράμματι προσερχόμενον, καὶ μὴ ἔχοντα τὸ
φράζον Πνεῦμα, τὸ ἀνοῖγον τὸ γράμμα, καὶ ἀποκαλύπτον τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ. Id. ib.
§ 22. ii. 27.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 255
“ enlightened by the divine Scripture and the Holy Spirit, their
“ doctrine is easy of refutation, and appears full of all folly.”?
Again ; writing against the Arian errors, he says, — “As
“ to all things im the divine Scripture, to one who possesses the
“ Holy Spirit, and has received of the Lord an attentive mind,
“ there is nothing of which it is difficult to see the meaning ; either
“‘ as to the nature of our feelings towards the Father, or towards
“the Son, or towards the Holy Ghost. But all things are
* spoken in truth in the divine Scriptures most perfectly by our
“ Lord himself and his Apostles, and the holy Prophets sent
“ by him, but, nevertheless, prudently with a regard to each
“ point handled, and m each place, according to the subject
“ treated of.” *
Basin or Casarea. (fl. a. 370.)
“ All Scripture,” says Basil, “is given. by inspiration, and
“ profitable, composed by the Spirit for this purpose; that, as
“in a common repository for medicines for the soul, we all may
“ each of us choose out hence the cure of our own malady.” ?
Replying to the question, Whether he who should not do the
Lord’s will, but should also neglect to inform himself what it
was, had any ground of hope, he says, “Such a one evidently
“ pretends ignorance, and cannot avoid the punishment of his
“sin. For, saith our Lord, if I had not come and spoken unto
“ them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for
“ their sin, the holy Scripture everywhere announcing the will of
ἐς God to all.’’*
1 Πάντη δὲ τῷ τὸν νοῦν εἰς Θεὸν κεκτημένῳ, καὶ ἐν θείᾳ γραφῇ, Kal ἐν Πνεύματι
ἁγίῳ κατηυγασμένῳ εὐθυέλεγκτος 6 αὐτῶν λόγος, καὶ πάσης ἀνοίας ἔμπλεως φαί-
νεται. Ip. Ady. heres.; her. Noet. 57. ὃ 8. i. 482.
2 Πάντα ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ τῷ κεκτημένῳ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καὶ νοῦν ἐγρήγορον παρὰ
Κυρίου εἰληφότι, οὐδέν ἐστι σκολιὸν ὑπονοῆσαι, ἢ πάθους εἶδος εἰς τὸν Πατέρα, ἢ
εἰς τὸν Tidy, οὐδὲ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα" ἀλλὰ πάντα τελειότατα, οἰκονομικῶς δὲ εἰς
ἑκάστην χρείαν, καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τόπῳ πρὸς τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν ταῖς θείαις
γραφαῖς εἴρηται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ ᾿Αποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἁγίων
Προφητῶν τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀπεσταλμένων. In. ib. her. Arian. § 66. i. 792.
3 Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, διὰ τοῦτο συγγραφεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ
Πνεύματος, ty’, ὥσπερ ἐν κοινῷ τῶν ψυχῶν ἰατρείῳ, πάντες ἄνθρωποι τὸ ἴαμα τοῦ
οἰκείου πάθους ἕκαστος ἐκλεγώμεθα. Bastin. Cmsar. In Psalm. i. § 1. Op. ed.
Ben. tom. i. p. 90.
4 δῆλός ἐστιν 6 τοιοῦτος σχηματιζόμενος Thy ἄγνοιαν, καὶ ἄφευκτον ἔχει τῆς
256 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ The things that appear of doubtful meaning, and obscurely
“« delivered in some places of holy Scripture, are clearly explained
“ by what is openly expressed in other places.”
“The best way to discover our duty, is the study of the
“inspired Scriptures .... Whatever any one may see that he is
“ deficient in, by frequent use of them he will find, as from
“some public repository of medicines, the suitable remedy for
“ his infirmity.” ?
“ Having the comfort that flows from the divine Scriptures,
thou wilt need neither me nor any one else to enable thee to
see what it behoves thee to do; having from the Holy Spirit
advice which is all-sufficient, and guidance to that which will
“< conduce to thy welfare.”
“T entreat her to spend her life in the study of the oracles of
the Lord, that her soul may be nourished with sound doctrine,
and her mind may grow and increase more than her body by
nature.” *
He tells us, also, that the heretics always “take care not to
“‘ teach simple souls from the divine Scriptures, but to cireum-
“ vent the truth by wisdom derived from without.’’®
ce
ἁμαρτίας τὴν κρίσιν" εἰ μὴ ἦλθον γὰρ, φησὶν ὁ Κύριος, καὶ ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς, auap-
τίαν οὐκ εἶχον' νῦν δὲ πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, τῆς ἁγίας γρα-
bis πανταχοῦ πᾶσι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ διαγγελλούσης. ΤΡ. Reg. brev. xlv.
τ, 429.
1 τὰ ἀμφίβολα καὶ ἐπικεκαλυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα ἔν τισι τόποις τῆς
θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς, ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις ὁμολογουμένων σαφηνίζεται. ID.
{b. celxvii. ii, 506. Quoted by Pxorivs in art. Eulogius, 225. p. 761. ed.
1653.
2 Μεγίστη δὲ ὁδὸς πρὸς Thy τοῦ καθήκοντος εὕρεσιν, καὶ ἣ μελέτη τῶν θεοπνεύ-
στων γραφῶν ....... περὶ ὅπερ ἂν ἕκαστος ἐνδεῶς ἔχοντος ἑαυτοῦ αἰσθάνηται,
ἐκείνῳ [ἐκείναις] προσδιατρίβων, οἷον ἂπό τινος κοινοῦ ἰατρείου, τὸ πρόσφορον
εὑρίσκει τῷ ἀῤῥωστήματι φάρμακον. Ip. Epist. ad Gregor. ep. 2. (al. 1.) ὃ 3.
iii. 72, 3.
3 Ἔχουσα δὲ Thy ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν παράκλησιν, οὔτε ἡμῶν οὔτε ἄλλου τινὸς
δεηθήσῃ πρὸς τὸ τὰ δέοντα συνορᾷν, αὐτάρκη τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἔχουσα
συμβουλίαν, καὶ ὁδηγίαν πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. Ip. Epist. ad viduam. ep. 288. (al.
284.) iii, 424,
4 Παρακαλῶ ἐν τῇ μελέτῃ τῶν λογίων τοῦ Κυρίου διάγειν αὐτὴν, ἵνα ἐκτρέ-
φηται ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγαθῆς διδασκαλίας τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ ἐπιδιδῷ πρὸς αὔξησιν καὶ
μέγεθος ἣ διάνοια αὐτῆς, μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ σῶμα ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως. Ib. Ep. ad vid.
ep. 296. (al. 285.) iii. 434. So elsewhere he calls the Scripture τροφὴ ψυχῶν,
hom. in Ps. 59. § 2. i. 190.
A “- ΄“ ~ /
5 τοῦτο yap αὐτοῖς ἀεί ἐστιν ἐπιμελὲς, μὴ ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν διδάσκειν τὰς
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 257
And in a work that has been by almost universal consent
attributed to him, he thus accounts for the occasional obscu-
rities of Scripture, and shows how he considered they were to
be met. “ As therefore,” he says, “ our Creator, without grudging
* us the enjoyment of those things, has not permitted that all the
“ necessaries of life should be born with us, as in the case of the
“ brutes, but has arranged that the want of necessary things
** should be an exercise of our understanding; so, also, he has
““ contrived the obscurity that is in the Scriptures for the benefit
“ of our mind, in order to rouse its energies ; first, im order that
“ being occupied with these, it may be withdrawn from lower
* pursuits; then, that what is acquired by labor, may be the
* better loved, and that which has taken a long time to acquire,
“ may remain the longer. But those things which are easily
* obtained, are but little valued in the enjoyment..... More-
“ over, there is need of purity of life, that that which is obscure
“in the Scriptures may be discerned, for the promotion of
“ moral virtue. And in addition to purity of life, there is
“ need, also, of exercise in the Scriptures, that the excellent
“ mysteries of the divine oracles may, by continual study, be
“ impressed upon the soul.” !
Thus are the obscurities that are in the Scriptures to be
solved; not by “Tradition” or “the Church,” but by study
ἀκεραιοτέρας ψυχὰς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἔξωθεν σοφίας παρακρούεσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Ip.
Epist. ad Cesar. ep. 8. (al. 141.) § 2. iii. 81.
1 Ὥσπερ οὖν ἐν τούτοις οὐχὶ βασκαίνων ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸ (ῇν ἀφορμῶν παραπλησίως
τοῖς ἀλόγοις συναπογενηθῆναι πάντα 6 δημιουργὸς ἡμῶν οὐ συνεχώρησεν, ἀλλὰ
τὴν ἔνδειαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων γυμνάσιον ἡμῖν τῆς διανοίας ἐμηχανήσατο, οὕτω καὶ
τὴν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ἀσάφειαν ἐπ᾿ ὠφελείᾳ τοῦ νοῦ, διεγείρων αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν,
ἐπετήδευσε: πρῶτον μὲν, ἵνα τούτοις ἐνασχολούμενος τῶν χειρόνων ἀφέλκηται"
ἔπειτα ὅτι τὰ πόνῳ κτηθέντα μᾶλλόν πως ἀγαπᾶται, καὶ τὰ διὰ μακροῦ χρόνου
προσγενόμενα μονιμώτερον παραμένει: ὧν δὲ ῥᾳδία ἣ κτῆσις, οὐ περισπούδαστος 7
ἀπόλαυσις. . .. .. Πρὸς δὴ τοῦτο χρεία τῆς ἐν τῷ βίῳ καθαρότητος, ὥστε καὶ πρὸς
τὴν τῆς ἠθικῆς ἀρετῆς ἐπιτήδευσιν τὸ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς κεκαλυμμένον διαγνωσθῆναι.
Χρεία δὲ πρὸς τῇ καθαρότητι τοῦ βίου καὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς διατριβῆς, ἵνα τὸ
σεμνοπρεπὲς καὶ μυστικὸν τῶν θείων λογίων ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς μελέτης ἐντυπωθῇ τῇ
ψυχῇ. Comment. in Is. Pref. § 6. i. 882. The Benedictines, though placing
this among the works falsely ascribed to Basil, admit that this Commentary has
been always by almost general consent attributed to Basil, and that the only
learned critic who has opposed this view is Petavius, and that it is certainly a
work of the fourth century or thereabouts. See “ Monitum,” ed, Ben. i. 377.
VOL. III. 5
258 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
and meditation. And the aid of God’s Holy Spirit is to be
sought by us as our helper therein. For, saith Basil, “If we even
“ fail of treating the matter as it deserves, yet if, by the aid of
“ the Spirit, we do not depart from the mind of Scripture, we
* shall not be altogether condemned as reprobates; and by the
aid of (divine] grace shall afford some edification to the Church
“ of God.” }
“1 see, that, even in the oracles of the Spirit, it is not open
“to every one to undertake the investigation of the things
“ spoken, but to him who has the spirit of discernment, as the
“ Apostle hath taught us, saying, in the distribution of spiritual
“ gifts, “ For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom,
Sitee, δεν sai"
Grecory or Nyssa. (fl. a. 370.)
Of the opinion of Gregory of Nyssa on this subject, we may
judge from the following passage in his observations on the
Psalms.
“ Let us observe,” he says, “the skill with which the subject
“ is treated ; by which, though the course of life that is agree-
“able to virtue is so difficult and arduous, and the doctrine
“ of the divine mysteries obscure, and the theology mysterious,
“ and having its perfection in propositions difficult of compre-
“ hension, he hath made it so easy to be comprehended and sweet,
“ that this instruction is not only an object of regard to men of
“* perfection, who are already purified in the senses of their soul,
‘but has become a possession which even women may call
“ their own ; and brings pleasure to babes, as one of their toys;
“and serves to old persons for a staff and rest; and that he
1 Εἰ yap καὶ τῆς ἀξίας ἀπολειπόμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν τοῦ βουλήματος τῆς γραφῆς μὴ
ἐκπέσωμεν τῇ βοηθείᾳ τοῦ Πνεύματος, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἄπόβλητοι παντελῶς κριθη-
σόμεθα, καὶ τῇ συνεργίᾳ τῆς χαρίτος οἰκοδομὴν τινα τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ παρε-
ξόμεθα. In Hexaem. hom. 2. ὃ 1. 1. 12.
2 Ἐγὼ δὲ δρῶ, ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς λογίοις τοῦ Πνεύματος οὐ παντὶ ἐξῆν ἐπιβάλλειν
τῇ ἐξετάσει τῶν εἰρημένων, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἔχοντι τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς διακρίσεως, καθὼς ἐδί-
δαξεν ἡμᾶς ὃ ἀπόστολος, ἐν ταῖς διαιρέσεσι τῶν χαρισμάτων εἰπών: ᾧ μὲν γὰρ διὰ
τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοται λόγος σοφίας, κατ. Χλ. Epist. ad Neocesar. ep. 204. (al.
75.) § 5. iii. 805.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 259
* who is joyful, thinks the gift of this instruction belongs to
“him; and that he who is in sorrow from misfortune, thinks
“ that such a great blessing, namely, of the Scripture, was given
on his account. Moreover, those who are journeying by land
or by sea, or those who are engaged in sedentary operations,
and, in short, all in every occupation, both men and women,
well and ill, reckon it a misfortune to lose any opportunity of
discoursing on this sublime instruction.” ἢ
Such is his language, not with respect to the clear and plain
statements of the New Testament, but with respect to the Book
of Psalms. And I think, that, from it, we may form a tolerably
well-founded conclusion, as to what would have been his senti-
ments on the general question of the aptness of Scripture, as a
whole, to teach the faith.
ce
[11
EruraM Syrvs. (ῆ. a. 370.)
“We,” says Ephrem Syrus, “ will apply our own mind to
“ the truth, under the guidance of the inspired Scripture. For,
“ they whose minds are not enlightened by the divine teaching,
“ are far from the truth.” ?
“ Wherefore, my brother, watch diligently, and be always
1 τῆς ἐξετάσεως σκοπήσωμεν τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, OC js οὕτως σκληράν τε καὶ σύντονον
οὖσαν τὴν κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν πολιτείαν, τήν τε τῶν μυστηρίων αἰνιγματώδη διδασκαλίαν,
καὶ τὴν ἀπόῤῥητόν τε καὶ κεκριμένην δυσεφίκτοις θεωρήμασιν θεολογίαν, οὕτως
εὔληττόν [εὔληπτόν] τε καὶ γλυκεῖαν ἐποίησεν, ὡς μὴ μόνον τελείοις ἀνδράσιν
τοῖς ἤδη κεκαθαρμένοις τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια τὴν διδασκαλίαν ταύτην σπουδά-
ζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς γυναικωνίτιδος ἴδιον γενέσθαι κτῆμα: καὶ νηπίοις ὥς τι τῶν
ἀθυρμάτων ἡδονὴν φέρειν" καὶ τοῖς παρηλικοτέροις ἀντὶ βακτηρίας τε καὶ ava-
παύσεως γίνεσθαι, τόν τε φαιδρυνόμενον ἑαυτοῦ νομίζειν εἶναι τῆς διδασκαλίας
ταύτης τὸ δῶρον" καὶ τὸν σκυθρωπῶς ex περιστάσεως διακείμενον, δι᾽ αὐτὸν οἴεσθαι
τὴν τοιαύτην τῆς γραφῆς χάριν δεδόσθαι: ὁδηποροῦντές τε πρὸς τούτοις καὶ θαλατ-
τεύοντες ἄνθρωποι, ἢ τισὶν ἐπιδιφρίοις ἐργασίαις προσασχολούμενοι, καὶ πάντες οἱ
ἁπαξαπλῶς ἐν πᾶσιν ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες, ἐν ὑγείᾳ τε καὶ ἀῤῥω-
στίᾳ, (ζημίαν ποιοῦνται, τὸ μὴ διὰ στόματος τὴν ὑψηλὴν ταύτην διδασκαλίαν φέρειν.
Gree. Nyss. Tract. 1. in Psalm. Inscript. ο. 3. Op. ed. Paris. 1615. tom. i. pp.
261, 2.
2 ‘Hucis δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἐπηστήσομεν | ἐπιστήσομεν) τὴν ἑαυτῶν νοῦν, ὁδηγούμενοι
ὑπὸ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς. Οἱ γὰρ μὴ περιλαμπόμενοι τὸν νοῦν ὑπὸ τῆς θείας
διδασκαλίας, πόῤῥω ἔχουσι τὸν ἑαυτῶν νοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας. ἘΡΗΒΕΜ. 508.
Ady. Gentil. error. Op. ed. Rom. 1732 et seq. tom. iii. p. 49.
ἢ 2
260 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ earnest in attending to reading, that it may teach thee how to
avoid the snares of the enemy, and obtain eternal life. For,
“ the reading of the divine Scriptures restrains the mind wan-
“ dering into error, and gives knowledge towards God. For it
“ is written, Be still, and know that Iam God. Thou hearest,
“my brother, that he who rests from other pursuits to study
“the divine Scriptures with a true heart, receives the know-
“ ledge of God. Wherefore, my brother, neglect not thy soul,
but give thyself to reading and to prayer, that thy mind may
be enlightened, and that thou mayest become perfect and
entire, wanting in nothing. Let others boast of their con-
verse with great men, and rulers, and kings. Boast thou
before the angels of God at conversing with the Holy Spirit,
“ through the holy Scriptures. For it is the Holy Spirit that
“ speaks through them. Therefore, be earnest in reading the
“‘ holy Scriptures, and persevering in prayer. For, as often
as thou dost meet God through them, so often thy body and
“soul is sanctified. Therefore, my brother, knowing this, be
“ more frequent and earnest in reading them.” !
And, for the interpretation of the word, he thus directs us to
the teaching of the Holy Spirit. “ When thou art about to sit
“‘ down and read, or to hear any one reading, pray to God first,
“ saying, O Lord Jesus Christ, open my ears and the eyes of
“my heart, that I may hear thy words, and understand and do
“thy will... . Always thus pray to God, that he may en-
“lighten thy mind, and manifest to thee the meaning of his
ce
[1
ce
ce
[1
ce
ce
1 Διὸ, ἀδελφέ μου, νῆψον ἀσφαλῶς, καὶ σπούδασον ae) TH ἀναγνώσει προσκολ-
λᾶσθαι, ἵνα σε διδάξῃ πῶς δεῖ ἐκφυγεῖν τὰς παγίδας τοῦ ἐχθροῦ, καὶ καταλαβεῖν
τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν. Συστέλλει γὰρ ἀνάγνωσις τῶν θείων γραφῶν τὸν νοῦν πλανώ-
μενον, καὶ δωρεῖται γνῶσιν εἰς Θεὸν. Γέγραπται γὰρ, Σχολάσατε, καὶ γνῶτε ὅτι
ἐγώ εἶμι 6 Θεὸς. ᾿Ακούεις, ἀδελφέ μου, ὅτι γνῶσιν Θεοῦ λαμβάνει ὃ σχολάζων
ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἐν ἀληθινῇ καρδίᾳ. Διὸ, ἀδελφὲ, μὴ ἀμελήσῃς τῆς ψυχῆς σου,
ἀλλὰ σχόλαζε τῇ ἀναγνώσει, καὶ ταῖς εὐχαῖς, ὅπως φωτισθῇ σου ἡἣ διάνοια, καὶ
ὅπως γένη τέλειος, καὶ ὁλόκληρος, ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενος. “AAAOL καυχῶνται ἐπὶ
συνομελίᾳ μεγιστάνων, ἀρχόντων τε καὶ βασιλέων. Σὺ δὲ καυχᾶσαι ἔμπροσθεν
τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ Θεοῦ συνομελῶν τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι διὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν. Td
γὰρ ἅγιον πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ λαλοῦν δι᾽ αὐτῶν. Σπούδαζε οὖν ἐντυγχάνειν ταῖς
θείαις γραφαῖς, καὶ προσκαρτερεῖν ταῖς εὐχαῖς. Ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐντυγχάνεις τῷ Θεῷ δι᾽
αὐτῶν, τοσαυτάκις ἁγιάζεταί cov τὸ σῶμα καὶ ψυχή. Τοῦτο οὖν γινώσκων, ἀδελφέ
μου, σπούδαζε πυκνοτέρως ἐντυγχάνειν αὐταῖς. IpeMm. De Sec. Ady. Op. tom. iii.
p- 99; repeated in his Treatise, De Panoplia, tom. iii. pp. 230, 31.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 261
‘words. For, many have erred through confidence in their
“ understanding, and professing themselves to be wise have
“ become fools, not understanding what was written, and have
“ fallen into blasphemies and perished.” !
Here we see, what Ephrem considered to be the way to avoid
error and heresy; not the taking our faith from any body of
men, but from the Holy Scriptures, with earnest prayer to God
to enable us rightly to understand them.
Macarius or Eeypr. (fl. a. 373.)
Our next testimony is from Macarius. Let the reader con-
sider, how far the following testimony is reconcileable with the
notion that Scripture is insufficient to teach the faith. “ God,
* the supreme king,” says Macarius, “ has sent the divine Scrip-
“tures as his Letters to mankind, having clearly declared by
“ them, that those who have called upon God, and believed in
“him, may claim and receive the heavenly gift.”” Are they
written, then, so as to be insufficient to deliver his message ?
Amprose. (fl. a. 374.)
“ He,” saith Ambrose, “ that is versed in the words of the
Apostles, is acquainted with the commands of Jesus our Lord.” ὃ
«The books of the heavenly Scriptures are good pastures, by
“which we are fed by daily reading, by which we are renewed
“ and refreshed, when we taste the things that are written, or
“yuminate frequently upon that which has been but tasted.
1 ὅρταν δὲ μέλλῃς καθεστῆναι Kal ἀναγνῶναι, ἢ ἀναγινώσκοντος ἀκοῦσαι, δεή-
θητι πρῶτον τοῦ Θεοῦ, λέγων, Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστὲ ἄνοιξον τὰ ὦτα, καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλ-
'μοὺς τῆς καρδίας μου, τοῦ ἀκοῦσαί με τῶν λόγων σου, καὶ συνιέναι, καὶ ποιῆσαι τὸ
θέλημά σου...... Οὕτω πάντοτε εὔχου τῷ Θεῷ, ὅπως φωτίσῃ σου τὸν νοῦν, καὶ
δηλώσῃ σοι τὴν δύναμιν τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ. Πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐπλανήθησαν θαῤῥή-
σαντες τῇ συνέσει αὐτῶν, καὶ φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν, μὴ νοοῦντες τὰ
γεγραμμένα, καὶ περιέπεσον εἰς βλασφημίας καὶ ἀπώλοντο. In. Ib. p. 101; re-
peated in his Treatise De Panoplia, p. 233.
2 τὰς θείας γραφὰς ὥσπερ ἐπιστολὰς ἄπέστειλεν 6 βασιλεὺς Θεὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώ-
ποις, δηλώσας δι᾽ αὐτῶν, ἵνα παρακαλέσαντες τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ πιστεύσαντες αἰτήσωσι
καὶ λάβωσι δωρεὰν οὐράνιον. Macar. Heypr. hom. 39. ed. cum Op. GREGOR.
Neroczs. Par. 1622. p. 203.
3 “ Qui exercetur in verbis Apostolorum Jesu Domini mandata cognoscit.”
Anpros. In Ps. 118. Serm. 2. ὃ 35. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. col. 993.
262 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“© Upon these pastures the flock of the Lord is fattened.’ Anda
little further on, on the words, “thy word is a light unto my
feet,” he says, “ The eye of our mind is fed with the light of
“ this spiritual lamp, which shines before us in this night of
“ the world, lest, like those who walk in darkness, we should
“ stagger with uncertain footsteps, and be unable to find the
“ right path.” !
“ That no one may err, let him follow those things by which the
“ Holy Scripture, that we may be able to understand the Son, hath
“ pointed him out. He is called the Word, he is called the Son,
“he is called the Power of God, &c.”?
“When I consider, O august Emperor, how it is that the
“ human race has so erred, as that most, alas! follow different
“ views respecting the Son of God, it appears by no means won-
“ derful, that human knowledge hath erred respecting heavenly
“ things, but that it hath not rendered obedience to the Scrip-
MULES. Ὁ
It required only “ obedience to the Scriptures’’ to follow the
true faith.
“In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own
“‘ words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add
“ of his own ; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather per-
“‘ form the office of a grammarian than a discourser.” *
Other passages, confirmative of the same view, might easily
be added.°
1 « Bona pascua libri sunt Scripturarum ccelestium, in quibus quotidiana lec-
tione pascimur, in quibus recreamur ac reficimur, cum ea qué scripta sunt degus-
tamus, vel summo ore libata frequentius ruminamus. His paseuis grex Domini
saginatur...... Pascitur oculus noster interior lucerne spiritalis lumine, que
nobis in hac mundi nocte przlucet, ne, sicut in tenebris ambulantes, incertis titu-
bemus vestigiis, et viam veram invenire nequeamus.” Ib. In Ps. 118. Serm. 14.
§§ 2, 5. i. col. 1140, 1141.
2 “ Certe, ne quis possit errare, sequatur ea quibus Scriptura Sancta, ut intelli-
gere possimus Filium, significavit. Verbum dicitur, Filius dicitur, Dei Virtus
dicitur,” ete. Ip. De fide, lib. i. ο. 2. ii. 447.
3 «Consideranti mihi, Imperator Auguste, qua ratione sic erraverit genus
hominum, ut de Dei Filio plerique, vee mihi, diversa sequerentur, nequaquam
satis mirum videtur, quia erravit humana scientia de supernis, sed quod Scripturis
non detulit obedientiam.” In. De fide, lib. iv. ο. 1. ii. 521.
4 “Tn plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat [i. e. Paulus] sermonibus, ut is qui
tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici
magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere.” Ip. Epist. Class. 1. ep. 37. § 1. ii. 930.
> See De Cain et Abel, lib. ii. c. 6. § 22. 1, 216. In Psalm. 37. Pref. ὃ 7.1. 818.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 263
And of that spiritual teaching by which the meaning of
the word is made known to the hearts of individuals, he speaks
thus,—
“ Does it not sometimes happen, that when we think of any-
“ thing out of the Scriptures, and cannot find its interpretation,
“ while we doubt and seek, suddenly he [i. e. God the Word]
appears to come to us over the mountains, that is, the highest
doctrines, and then appearing to us as it were above the hills,
illuminates our mind, that he may infuse into our understand-
“ ings that which seemed difficult to us to find out ? Therefore
“the Word, from being as it were absent, becomes present in
our hearts. And, again, when anything is rather obscure to
us, the Word is as it were withdrawn, and we desire his pre-
““ sence as that of one who is absent ; and, again appearing, he
“ shows himself to us, and is as it were present to us in the
“ knowledge of those things we are inquiring into.” ἢ
“ God teaches and illuminates the minds of each, and pours
into them the light of knowledge, if thou dost open the doors
“of thy heart, and dost give entertainment to the light of
“heavenly grace. When thou art in doubt, inquire diligently ;
‘for he that seeks finds, and to him that knocks it is opened.
“There is much obscurity in the prophetical Scriptures ; but
‘if with the hand of thy mind thou dost knock at the gate of
‘the Scriptures, and diligently examine those things that are
“ hidden, thou wilt begin by degrees to collect the meaning of
‘‘ the words; and it shall be opened to thee by no other than
“the Word of God, of whom thou hast read in the Apocalypse,
“ that the Lamb opened the sealed book,” &c.?
In Psalm. 118. Serm. 12. § 28. i. 1123. Ib. Serm. 22. ὃ 19, i. 1251. Exhort.
virg. c. 9. ii. 292. Epist. Class. 1. ep. 18. ὃ 7. ii. 835.
1 « Nonne cum aliquid de Scripturis cogitamus, et explanationem ejus invenire
non possumus, dum dubitamus, dum qurimus, subito nobis, quasi super montes,
altissima dogmata, videtur adscendere ; deinde, quasi super colles apparens nobis,
illuminat mentem ; ut infundat sensibus quod invenire posse difficile videbatur ?
Ergo quasi ex absente fit presens Verbum in cordibus nostris. Et rursus cum
aliquid nobis subobscurum est, tamquam subducitur Verbum, et tamquam absentis
adventum desideramus ; et iterum apparens ostendit se nobis, tamquam presens
sit nobis in iis quz requirimus cognoscendis.” Ip. In Psalm, 118. Serm. 6.
§ 9.1. 1035. ’
2 “ Docet Deus, et mentes illuminat singulorum, et claritatem cognitionis
264 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“To enable him to interpret the word, let him seek the
assistance of God.’ !
Jerome. (fl. a. 378.)
We proceed to Jerome.
“« What other life can there be without the knowledge of the
“ Scriptures, through which we become acquainted with Christ
ἐς himself, who is the life of those who believe ?” ?
“ΤΆ is sufficient for me that I should speak so as to be under-
“ stood, that, disputing concerning the Scriptures, I should
“imitate the plainness of the Scriptures.” ὃ
“ Love the Holy Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee ; love
“her, and she will preserve thee; reverence her, and she will
“ embrace thee ; let these be the ornaments on thy breast and
<1 iy. ears. Ὁ
Again, commenting on Is. 6. vil. vv. 19, &c., he says, that
the meaning of the prophet was, that if they wished to know
doubtful matters, they must apply themselves with greater
diligence to the Law and the testimonies of the Scriptures,
adding, “ To us God hath to a greater extent given the Law
“and the testimonies of the Scriptures, which, if you are
“ unwilling to follow, you will not have light, but darkness
“¢ will always overwhelm you, which shall pervade your land and
doctrine.” ἢ
infundit, si tu aperias ostia cordis tui et ccelestis gratiz recipias claritatem.
Quando dubitas, diligenter inquiras; qui enim querit, invenit, et ei qui pulsat,
aperitur. Multa obscuritas est in Scripturis propheticis; sed si manu quadam
mentis tue Scripturarum januam pulses, et ea que sunt occulta, diligenter ex-
amines, paulatim incipies rationem colligere dictorum; et aperietur tibi non ab
alio sed a Dei Verbo, de quo legisti in Apocalypsi quod Agnus librum signatum
aperuit,” ὅθ. In. In Psalm. exviii. Serm. 8. § 59. i. 1078.
1 «Ὁ verbum emolat, Deum quasgat.” Ip. Expos. Lue. lib. viii. § 63.i. 1486.
2 « Que enim alia potest esse vita sine scientia Scripturarum, per quas etiam
ipse Christus agnoscitur, qui est vita credentium.” Hreron. Ep. ad Paulam,
ep. 30. § 7. Op. ed. 2a. Vallars. Ven. 1766 et seq. tom. i. col. 149.
3 « Mihi sufficit sic loqui ut intelligar, ut de Scripturis disputans Scripturarum
imiter simplicitatem.” Ip, Ep. ad Damasum, ep. 36. ὃ 14. i. 168.
4 « Ama Scripturas Sanctas, et amabit te sapientia; dilige eam, et servabit te ;
honora illam, et amplexabitur te. Hee monilia in pectore et in auribus tuis
hereant.” Ip. Ep. ad Demetriad. ep. 180. § 20. i. 997.
5 “Si vultis nosse que dubia sunt, magis vos Legi et testimoniis tradite Scrip-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 265
“ It is the custom of the Scriptures to subjoin what is manifest
“‘ to what is obscure, and openly and plaimly to declare what they
** have before spoken enigmatically.” +
And as it respects the interpretation of the Scriptures and the
way in which men are led to embrace their true meaning, thus
he speaks :—
“ Unless all things that are written are opened by him who
“hath the key of David, who opens and no man shuts, and
“ shuts and no man opens, they will be opened by no other
“ interpreter.” *
“In expounding the Holy Scriptures, we always need the
presence of the Spirit of God.” ὃ
““ Marcion and Basilides, and the other heretics, have not the
« sospel of God, because they have not the Holy Spirit, without
*“‘ which the gospel that is taught becomes human.”* *
And speaking of commentaries and commentators, he says,—
“« What place have commentaries? .... They repeat the opinions
“‘ of many persons, and say, Some interpret this place in such
“© a way, and others in such another way.”° But we find no
notice of the principle of traditive interpretation, on which our
opponents insist.
THEOPHILUS oF ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 385.)
For the sentiments of Theophilus of Alexandria on this
turarum...... Magis nobis Deus legem dedit et testimonia Scripturarum, que si
sequi nolueritis, non habebitis lucem ; sed semper caligo vos opprimet, quae trans-
ibit per terram vestram atque doctrinam.” Ib. In Is. ὁ. 8. vv. 19 et seq. iv.
126, 7, and 128.
1 « Moris est Scripturarum, obscuris manifesta subnectere, et quod prius sub
zenigmatibus dixerint, aperta voce proferre.” Ip. In Is. ο. 19. v. 1. iv. 201.
2 « Nisi aperta fuerint universa que scripta sunt ab eo qui habet clavem David,
qui aperit et nemo claudit, claudit et nemo aperit, nullo alio reserante pandentur.”
Ip. Ep. ad Paulin. ep. 58. § 9. i. 325, 6.
3 « Semper in exponendis Scripturis Sanctis ilius [i. 6. Spiritus Dei] indige-
mus adventu.” Ip. In Mich. ὁ. 1. ver. 10 et seq. vi. 441.
4 “ Marcion et Basilides et caterae hereticorum pestes non habent Dei evan-
gelium, quia non habent Spiritum Sanctum, sine quo humanum fit evangelium
quod docetur.” Ip. In Galat. c. 1. ver. 11, 12. vii. 386.
5 « Commentarii quid operis habent ? Alterius dicta edisserunt ; quae obscure
seripta sunt, plano sermone manifestant; multorum sententias replicant, et
dicunt, Hune locum quidam sic edisserunt, alii sic interpretantur,” ἄρ, Ib.
Contra Ruf. lib. i. § 16. ii. 471. See, also, ib. lib. iii, § 11. ii, 541.
266 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
matter, let us observe the force and bearing of the following
passages,
“Ἔν the daily reading of the Holy Scriptures, let each one
“ pour oil into his faculties, and prepare the lamp of his mind,
“‘ so that, according to the precept of the gospel, it ‘may give
“ licht to all that are in the house.” (Matt. v.15.).... Let
‘us mingle with the heavenly choir, as if already in mmd
“ translated thither; and viewing the abodes of glory, let us be
“‘ now what we are about to be. Of which blessedness the Jews
“‘ have made themselves unworthy, who having left the riches of
“holy Scripture, and given themselves up to the teaching of
“ their rabbies, to this day it is said of them, ‘They do always
“ err in their heart.’ [Ps. xciv. 10.]”?
Again ; “ Whence, if we wish to be partakers of salvation,
“and cleaving to the pursuit of virtue to purge our souls of
“ their evil propensities, and to wash away whatever impurity
“ there is in us, by the continual meditation of the Scriptures,
“ contemplating as it were under a clear sky the openly revealed
“< doctrines of the Christian faith, let us hasten to celebrate the
“ὁ feast of heavenly joy.” ”
Again ;— Leaving the shades of error and the cold of
‘« ionorance, let them, like the Magi, turn themselves to the rise
“ of the Sun of righteousness, and inhabiting the warmest region
“under heaven, which is experienced in the heat emanating
‘from the Scriptures, let them, despising the madness of
“ Origen, ask their ecclesiastical pastors, and say, ‘ Where is he
“who is born King of the Jews?’ And when they shall have
“ found him lying in the manger, that is, in the plain unadorned
1 “ Quotidiana lectione Sanctarum Scripturarum quisque infundat oleum sensu
suo, et paret mentis lucernam, que juxta preceptum Evangelii ‘luceat omnibus
qui in domo sunt’ [Matth. v. 15.]......cclestibus misceamur choris, ut jam
nunc illuc mente translati, et augustiora videntes loca, simus quod futuri sumus.
Qua beatitudine indignos se fecere Judzi, qui Scripture Sanctz opibus derelictis,
et ad pauperis intelligentiae adquiescentes magistros, hodie audiunt; ‘semper
errant corde.’” [Ps. xciv. 10.] THEOPHIL. ALEX. in Epist. Paschal. la. §§ 1, 2.
in Bibl. Vet. Patr. ed. Galland. tom. vii. p. 616.
2 «Unde si volumus salutis esse participes, et adherentes studio virtutum ani-
marum vitia purgare, et quidquid in nobis sordium est, jugi Scripturarum medi-
tatione diluere; quasi sub sudo apertam doctrinarum scientiam contemplantes,
festinemus superne letitie festa celebrare.” In. in Ep. Pasch. 2a. § 1. p. 623.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 267
“ discourse of the Scriptures, let them offer to him gold and
‘ frankincense and myrrh, that is, an approved faith shining
“ with all the radiancy of truth, the fragrancy of a sweet smell-
ΚΕ ing conversation and continence.” ἢ
Again ;—“ Sailing in the same vessel with the Saviour our
“ Lord, like his disciples, we have passed over the sea, and
“ entering the haven of rest, we arrive at the lovely shore of the
“ divine volumes, and pluck the various flowers of knowledge, and
*< kissing the snowy limbs of wisdom, we remain fixed in her em-
“ braces .... For as many as read the Holy Scriptures with dili-
“ gence, and wander through the variegated meadows of the
“ heavenly discourses, enjoy this blessedness.”* In these pas-
sages, then, Holy Scripture is clearly set forth as the great
teacher on all points connected both with faith and practice.
AUGUSTINE. (fl. a. 396.)
We proceed to Augustine, who, in a passage already quoted,
has thus borne his clear and decided testimony to the plain-
ness of Scripture in all the important points of faith and
practice ;—
“« In those things,” he says, “ which are plainly delivered in the
“ Scriptures, are found all those things which contain faith and
* practice, hope, that is, and charity.” *
1 « Erroris tenebras frigusque ignorantie relinquentes, ad ortum solis justitie,
juncti magorum studiis convertantur, et inhabitantes calidissimam plagam cceli,
quz in Scripturarum fervore sentitur, pastores ecclesiasticos, spreta Origenis
amentia, sciscitentur, et dicant; “ἘΠῚ est qui natus est rex Judezorum?’ Cum
illum invenerint jacentem in presepi, humili videlicet eloquio Scripturarum,
offerant ei aurum et tus et myrrham, id est, fidem probatam et omni veritatis
splendore fulgentem, conversationisque bene olentis fragrantiam et continentiam.”
Ip. in Ep. Pasch. 2a. § 19. p. 630.
5. “Cum Salvatore Domino, instar discipulorum illius, navigantes transfreta-
vimus, et portum quietis intrantes, pulcherrimum divinorum voluminum litus
amplectimur ; varios carpentes flores scientie, et nivea membra sapientiz pressis
figentes osculis, in ejus heremus amplexibus.. .. Quotquot enim diligentius Serip-
turas Sanctas legunt, et per picta sermonum ccelestium prata discurrunt, hac
beatitudine perfruuntur.” Ib. in Ep. Pasch. 2a. § 20. p. 630.
3 “ In iis que aperte in Scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia que con-
tinent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem.” Augustin De
doctr. Christ. lib. ii. c. 9. Op. ed. Ben. tom, iii. part. 1. col. 24.
268 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
And in the context of this passage he observes,—“ The Holy
“ Spirit hath most wisely and profitably so fashioned the Holy
“ Scriptures, as by the plainer places to meet the wants of man-
“kind, and by the more obscure to remove their pride. For
“ hardly anything is extracted from those obscurities which is
“ not elsewhere found most plainly delivered.’ +
And to the same effect he says elsewhere,—“ The phraseology
“ of Scripture, how accessible is it to all, although seen through
“ by very few! The things which it contains plainly expressed,
“ like a familiar friend, it speaks without obscurity to the heart
“ both of unlearned and learned. But in those things which it
‘‘ speaks mysteriously, it does not exalt itself by a lofty phraseo-
“ logy, so that the slow and unlearned mind dare not approach
“ it, like a pauper with a rich man; but it allures all by a simple
“ phraseology, whom it not only feeds with the truth that is
“ plainly expressed in it, but also exercises with that which is
“ hidden, having the same thing in the parts that are easy as in
“ those that are difficult of comprehension. But lest the things
“‘ plainly expressed should be disdained, the same things again
“‘ mysteriously expressed are sought after, the things sought
“ after are again in a certain way brought back to the mind, and
“ the things thus brought back to the mind are pleasantly signi-
* fied to it. By these things thus advantageously ordered, both
“ perverse minds are corrected, and weak minds nourished, and
ἐς oreat minds delighted.’’?
“ In the whole extent of the Holy Scriptures we are fed by
1 « Maonifice igitur et salubriter Spiritus Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanctas modi-
ficavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia deter-
geret. Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissime dictum
alibi reperiatur.” Ip. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. ¢. 6. iii. part. 1. col. 22.
2 <« Modus ipse dicendi quo Sancta Scriptura contexitur, quam omnibus acces-
sibilis, quamvis paucissimis penetrabilis. Ea qui aperta continet, quasi amicus
familiaris, sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum atque doctorum. Ea vero que in
mysteriis occultat, nec ipsa eloquio superbo erigit, quo non audeat accedere mens
tardiuscula et inerudita, quasi pauper ad divitem; sed invitat omnes humili
sermone, quos non solum manifesta pascat, sed etiam secreta exerceat veritate, hoe
in promtis quod in reconditis habens. Sed ne aperta fastidirentur, eadem rursus
operta desiderantur, desiderata quodam modo renovantur, renoyata suaviter
intimantur. His salubriter et prava corriguntur, et parva nutriuntur, et magna
oblectantur ingenia.” Ip. Ep. ad Volus, ep. 187. (al. 3.) ο. 5. ii. 409.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 269
“ the parts that are plain, our faculties are exercised by those
“ that are obscure ; by the former our hunger is driven away, by
“ the latter our pride.” }
“ God hath brought the Scriptures down to the capacity of
infants and babes.” ?
Again, speaking on one particular passage, he says,—‘“‘ What
“can be plainer than this? What clearer? I fear lest perhaps
“ when I treat of it desirous to explain it, that which by itself
“is perspicuous and clear, may become obscure. For they who
“ do not understand these words, or pretend that they do not
““ understand them, much less understand mine, or admit that
“they understand them; unless, perhaps, they may for this
“ yeason quickly understand ours, that it is allowable for them
“ to despise them when understood, but with the words of the
“ Apostle the same is not allowable. Moreover, where they
* cannot interpret the words otherwise, in accordance with their
“ own views, they reply even with respect to those that are clear
* and plain, that they are obscure and of doubtful meaning, because
“ they dare not call them wicked and perverse.”? This, it is
true, is spoken more especially of a particular passage, not of the
Scripture generally ; but nevertheless the passage appears to me
to contain some useful and pertinent remarks, in connexion with
the pot now in question.
Again ; “If Scripture sbould not use such words, it would not
“find its way in a familiar manner to all kinds of men, whose
“ benefit it wishes to provide for, that it may both alarm the
“ proud, and rouse the negligent, and exercise the inquiring,
1 “ Tn omni copia Scripturarum Sanctarum pascimur apertis, exercemur obscuris:
illic fames pellitur, hic fastidium.” In. Serm. de verb. Dom. 71. (al. 11.) ο. 7.
v. 389. ᾿
3. “Tnelinavit Scripturas Deus usque ad infantium et lactentium capacitatem,
Ip. In Psalm. viii. § 8. iv. 42.
3 “ Quid hoe apertius? quid clarius? Vereor ne forte cum dissero volens id
exponere, obscurum fiat quod per se lucet et claret. Qui enim hee verba non
intelligunt, aut se non intelligere fingunt, mea multo minus intelligunt, vel se
intelligere profitentur : nisi forte propterea cito intelligant nostra, quia conceditur
eis intellecta deridere, de Apostoli autem verbis non idem conceditur. Propterea
ubi aliter ea secundum suam sententiam interpretari non possunt, etiam clara et
manifesta obscura et incerta esse respondent, quia prava et perversa non audent.”
Ip. De op. Monach. c. 9. vi. 482.
3
270 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ and provide food for the intelligent ; which it would not do,
“ if it did not first lower itself, and in some degree stoop to those
“ that are fallen.”’ }
“Believe me, whatever is in the Scriptures is sublime and
“ divine ; truth is altogether in them, and a system of discipline
“ most suited to restore and renew the soul; and evidently so
« fashioned, that there is no one who cannot draw from thence
“ what is sufficient for him, if only he comes to draw, as true relt-
“ gion requires, with an earnest and pious mind.” "
Once more ; “ If,” he says, “ I should be ignorant, as to any
of those things, how it may be demonstrated and explained,
‘ yet, nevertheless, this I am convinced of, that, even here, THE
“ς TESTIMONY OF THE DIVINE ORACLES WOULD HAVE BEEN MOST
CLEAR, IF A MAN COULD NOT BE IGNORANT.OF IT, WITHOUT
“‘ LOSING THE PROMISED SALVATION.’ ®
If such testimonies as these are not sufficient, I know not
what words could be used to express the view for which we
contend.
Moreover, the directions he gives for the interpretation of
Scripture, are the same as those we have quoted from the pre-
ceding Fathers.
In his Treatise “De doctrina Christiana,” he discourses at
large on this subject, and his directions are such as these ;—
after saying that “ in those things that are delivered plainly in
“ the Scriptures, are found all those things that contain faith
“ and practice,” he adds,—“ an acquaintance being made with
“ the language of the divine Scriptures, we must proceed to the
ce
΄
[17
1 « Si non utatur Scriptura talibus verbis, non se quodam modo familiarius
insinuabit omni generi hominum, quibus vult esse consultum, ut et perterreat
superbientes, et excitet negligentes, et exerceat querentes, et alat intelligentes:
quod non faceret, si non se prius inclinaret, et quodam modo descenderet ad
jacentes.” Ip. De Civ. Dei, lib. xv. c. 25, vii. 410.
2 « Quidquid est, mihi crede, in Scripturis illis, altum et divinum est: inest
omnino veritas, et reficiendis instaurandisque animis accommodatissima disci-
plina ; et plane ita modificata, ut nemo inde haurire non possit, quod sibi satis
est, si modo ad hauriendum devote ac pie, ut vera religio poscit, accedat.” Ip.
De util. cred. ο. 6. viii. 54.
5. « ἘΠῚ si enim quodlibet horum, quemadmodum demonstrari et explicari possit,
ignorem: illud tamen credo, quod etiam hine divinorum eloquiorum clarissima
auctoritas esset, si homo id sine dispendio promissz salutis ignorare non posset.””
Ip. De pece. mer. et remiss. lib. ii. 6. ult. x. 71.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 271
“‘ discussion and resolution of those things that are obscure,
“ that instances from the plainer places may be taken for the
“ illustration of the obscurer passages, and some testimonies of
“ passages that are clear, may remove doubt from those that
“are obscure.”! Again; “ Where things are clearly stated,
“ there we must learn how they are to be understood in obscure
“ passages.” ® And he exhorts us to consult the Hebrew and
Greek originals,’ the context, the circumstances, the persons,
the times, &c. of what is said ;* and, in a case of doubt, the in-
quirer must “ consult the rule of faith which he has received
“ from the plainer places of Scripture, and the testimony (auc-
“ toritate) of the Church ;”° of which “ rule of faith,” he says
elsewhere, that “it is sufficiently known to the faithful, through
the Scriptures.” δ He is, no doubt, alluding to the Creed; but
this, be it recollected, he held to be,—not (like the Tractators)
something derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, and
fuller or plainer than Scripture ; but—a formula, derived amme-
diately from the Scriptures, its words being scattered through
the divine Scriptures, and collected thence, and put together, as
a help to the memory.’ The reference, therefore, is altogether
agreeable to the view we are here supposing Augustine to take ;
the Creed being merely, in his opinion, a compendium of the plain
passages of Scripture, which it was in the power of every one to
draw for himself from Scripture; and by these plain places, as
he constantly tells us, the obscure are to be interpreted.
1 « Facta quadam familiaritate cum ipsa lingua divinarum Scripturarum, in ea
que obscura sunt aperienda et discutienda pergendum est, ut ad obscuriores locu-
tiones illustrandas de manifestioribus sumantur exempla, et queedam certarum
sententiarum testimonia dubitationem incertis auferant.” Ip. De doctr. Christ.
lib. ii. ὁ. 9. 111. part. 1. col. 24.
2 «Ubi apertius ponuntur, ibi discendum est, quomodo in locis intelligantur
obseuris.” Ip. ib. lib. iii. ¢. 26. iii. part. 1. col. 56. For similar remarks, see
Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 68. vi. 221, 2. De Civ. Dei, lib. xi. c. 38. vii. 298. Re-
tract. lib. 11. c. 54.1. 59.
3 Ip. ib. lib. ii. ὁ. 11. col. 25.
4 See ib. lib. iii. ec. 3, 5, 10, 17, 18, 27, 28.
5 « Consulat regulam fidei quam de Scripturarum planioribus locis et Ecclesiz
auctoritate percepit.” In. ib.: lib. ii. ¢. 2. iii. part. 1. col, 45.
6 « Etsi voluntatem auctoris libri hujus indagare nequivimus, a regula tamen
fidei, que per alias ejusdem auctoritatis sacras litteras satis fidelibus nota est, non
aberravimus.’’ Ip. De Civ. Dei, lib. xi. ο, 33. vii. 298.
7 Seevol.i. p. 142.
272 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Thus, also, in his controversy with the Donatists, he says,
“ Let us choose the passages that are plain and clear. And if
“ nassages of this kind were not found in the Holy Scriptures,
* there would be no means by which the dark passages might be
“ opened, and the obscure explained.”1 “Let the Donatists
“ noint out their Church . . . in all the canonical testimonies
““ of the sacred books. Nor let them do this so as to collect
“ and relate those that are couched in obscure, or doubtful, or
“ figurative language, which every one can interpret as he likes,
“ according to his own view. For such passages cannot be
“ rightly understood and explained, unless, first, those things
“ that are most plainly delivered, are held by a firm faith.”?
The Christian’s faith, then, rests upon, and is directed by, first,
those plain passages of Scripture that are level with the capacity
of all, and in which the rule of faith is contained, and from
which every serious and devoted mind may draw what is suffi-
cient for his salvation ; and then upon what the more obscure
passages, when illustrated by the plain, appear to deliver.
And in judging of the meaning of those more obscure pas-
sages, we must take care not to depart from the truth as deli-
vered in the plain ; as Augustine elsewhere exhorts. “ When,”
he says, “ we read the divine books, in so great a number of
“ orthodox senses that are extracted from a few words, and
“ fortified by the sound Catholic faith, let us prefer that which
“it may appear certain was the meaning of him whom we are —
“ yeading: but if this is not evident, then certainly that which
“ the circumstances of the text do not oppose, and which agrees
“ with the sound faith ; but if the circumstances of the text,
“ also, cannot be fully investigated and discovered, at least that
“ only which the orthodox faith prescribes.” *
1 « Quzeque aperta et manifesta deligamus. Que si in Sanctis Scripturis non
invenirentur, nullo modo esset, unde aperirentur clausa, et illustrarentur obscura.”
Ip. Ep. ad Cath. contra Donat. vulg. De unit. Eccles. ὁ. 5. ix. 342.
2 « Ecclesiam suam demonstrent....in omnibus canonicis sanctorum librorum
auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et commemorent, que obscure vel am-
bigue vel figurate dicta sunt, que quisque, sicut voluerit, interpretetur secundum
sensum suum. Talia enim recte intelligi exponique non possunt, nisi prius ea,
que apertissime dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur.” Ib. ib. ο. 18. (al. 16.) ix. 371.
3 « Cum divinos libros legimus, in tanta multitudine verorum intellectuum, qui
~
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 273
To such passages as these, the Romanists are accustomed to
reply, that such directions for the interpretation of Scripture
are all very good in their way, but insufficient and uncertain ;
and that the traditive interpretation of the Church is alone
certain and authoritative. To which I answer, that if there is
any certain and authoritative interpretation, so far as it exists,
these modes of endeavouring to obtain the sense of Scripture
are not good, nor to be resorted to, because the former demands
our assent ; and by resorting to the latter, we neglect a privilege
given to us, and expose ourselves unnecessarily to a liability to
error. They are good only on the supposition that we are
bound, as individuals, to endeavour to ascertain the meaning of
God’s Word, and have no certain and authoritative interpreta-
tion to guide us. And therefore it cannot be supposed, that
Augustine, when giving these directions, held all the while, that
there was another, and an infallible, method of knowing what
the meaning of Scripture is. And secondly, those who contend
that he did, are bound to show from his writings that such was
the case.
I will only add, that Augustine, like the Fathers in general,
looked through the means to a Divine Teacher to make them
effectual. ‘‘ Perhaps,” he says, “ we act rashly, in that we wish
“ to discuss and investigate the words of God. But why were
“ they uttered, except that they may be known? Why were
“ they published abroad, but that they may be heard? Why
“ were they heard, but that they may be understood? There-
“ fore may God assist us, and grant us as much as he thinks fit
““ to vouchsafe.”’!
de paucis verbis eruuntur, et sanitate Catholice fidei muniuntur, id potissimum
deligamus, quod certum apparuerit eum sensisse, quem legimus: si autem hoc
latet, id certe quod circumstantia Scripture non impedit, et cum sana fide con-
cordat: si autem et Scripture circumstantia pertractari ac discuti non potest,
saltem id solum quod fides sana prescribit.” In. De Genes. ad lit. lib. i. ο. 21. 111,
part, 1. 131, 2.
1 “Temere fortasse facimus, quia discutere et scrutari volumus verba Dei. Et
quare dicta sunt, nisi ut sciantur? Quare sonuerunt, nisi ut andiantur? Quare
audita sunt, nisi ut intelligantur? Confortet ergo nos, et donet nobis aliquid
quantum ipse [i. 6. Deus] dignatur.” In, In Johann. tract. 21. ὃ 12. iii. part,
2. 462.
VOL. IIl. T
274 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Curysostom. (fl. a. 398.)
Our next witness is Chrysostom; to whose testimony we
would more particularly call the attention of the reader, as sup-
porting, in the most express and unequivocal way, the view for
which we contend.
I refer the reader, first, to his third sermon on Lazarus, the
whole of which bears strongly upon our present subject ; and
where, among other remarks of the same tendency, he speaks
thus ;—“ As to smiths, the instruments of their art are the
“ hammer, the anvil, and the tongs ; so the instruments of our art
“are the Apostolical and Prophetical books, and all Scripture
“ divinely-inspired and profitable. And as they make by their
“instruments all the vessels they take in hand, so we also,
“through these, form our souls; correcting them when de-
“ praved, and renewing them when grown old.”! And having
earnestly exhorted his hearers to the study of the Scriptures,
anticipating the objection that they could not understand them,
he tells them, that where they did not fully understand, the
very reading would do them good; adding this expressive testi-
mony on the point now in question,—“ But, on the contrary,
“it is impossible that you can remain ignorant of all things in
“it alike. For, on this account, the grace of the Spirit ordered
“ that publicans, and fishermen, and tent-makers, and shep-
“ herds, and goatherds, and ignorant and illiterate men, should
“ compose these books; that no one of those who are ignorant,
should have it in his power to resort to this excuse ; to the intent
“ that the things spoken might be easily understood by all ; that
“ both the handicraftsman, and the servant, and the poor old
“ woman, and the most unlearned of all men, might gain and
“ be profited by the hearing. For it was not for vain glory, as
“ the heathen, but for the salvation of the hearers, that they who,
1 Καθάπερ γὰρ ἐκείνοις ἐργαλεῖα τῆς τέχνης ἐστὶ σφύρα καὶ ἄκμων καὶ πυράγρα'
οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐργαλεῖα τῆς τέχνης ἐστὶν, ἀποστολικὰ καὶ προφητικὰ βιβλία,
καὶ πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος. Καὶ καθάπερ ἐκεῖνοι δι᾽ ἐκείνων τὰ
σκεύη πάντα, ἅπερ ἂν λάβωσι, διαπλάττουσιν: οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς διὰ τούτων τὴν
ψυχὴν τὴν ἡμετέραν χαλκεύομεν, καὶ διεστραμμένην διορθοῦμεν, καὶ παλαιωθεῖσαν
ἀνακαινίζομεν. CHRYSOSTOMI De Lazaro concio iii. ὃ 2. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i.
p- 738.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 275
“ from the beginning, were thought worthy of the grace of the
** Spirit, composed all these writings.” The heathen philoso-
phers, he adds, sought their own glory, and therefore spoke
obscurely, “ but the Apostles and the Prophets did everything the
“ very reverse of this; for they set before all the things that they
* delivered in clear and plain terms, as the common teachers of the
“ whole earth, to the intent that every one might be able, EVEN BY
““ HIMSELF, to learn what was said FROM THE READING ONLY... .
““ For, to whom are not all things in the Gospels plain?” + And
then proceeding to reason further with the objector on the folly
of his allegation of obscurity against the Scriptures, he says,—
* This is an excuse, a pretext, a veil for sloth. Understand
* you not, what is in the Scriptures? How, indeed, should
“ you be able ever to understand, when you do not even desire
“to glance at them? ‘Take the book into your hands; read
all the historical parts; and retaining in your memory the
“parts easy of comprehension, go over frequently the parts
“ that are difficult and obscure. And should you not be able,
“ by assiduous reading, to find out the meaning of what is said,
* go to one that is wiser, go to a teacher, communicate with
*« him respecting what is written, show much earnestness ; and,
“if God should see you exercising so much readiness of mind,
* he will not despise your diligence and solicitude ; but if man
“ should not teach you what you seek, he himself will certainly
yeyeal it. Remember the Eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia
|. . ‘But there is no Philip present now.’ No, but the Spirit
“ that moved Philip is present. My beloved, let us not trifle with
1“Addws δὲ, ἀδύνατον πάντα ἐπίσης ἀγνοεῖν" διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἣ τοῦ Πνεύματος
φκονόμησε χάρις TeAGVas καὶ ἁλιέας καὶ σκηνοποιοὺς καὶ ποιμένας καὶ αἰπόλους καὶ
ἰδιώτας καὶ ἀγραμμάτους ταῦτα συνθεῖναι τὰ βιβλία, ἵνα μηδεὶς τῶν ἰδιωτῶν εἰς
ταύτην ἔχῃ καταφεύγειν τὴν πρόφασιν, ἵνα πᾶσιν εὐσύνοπτα ἢ τὰ λεγόμενα ἵνα
καὶ ὅ χειροτέχνης, καὶ οἰκέτης, καὶ ἣ χήρα γυνὴ, καὶ 6 πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἀμα-
θέστατος, κερδάνῃ τε καὶ ὠφεληθῇ παρὰ τῆς ἀκροάσεως. Οὐ γὰρ πρὸς κενοδοξίαν,
καθάπερ οἱ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν ἀκουόντων ταῦτα πάντα συνέθη-
Koy οἱ παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν καταξιωθέντες τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριτο-...... Oi δὲ
ἀπόστολοι καὶ of προφῆται τὐυναντίον ἅπαν ἐποίησαν. Σαφῆ γὰρ καὶ δῆλα τὰ
παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν κατέστησαν ἅπασιν, ἅτε κοινοὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὄντες διδάσκαλοι, ἵνα
ἕκαστος καὶ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ μανθάνειν δύνηται ἐκ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως μόνης τὰ λεγόμενα.
coeeee Τίνι γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι δῆλα τὰ τῶν εὐαγγέλιων ἅπαντα ; ID. Ib. §§ 2, 3.
i. 799, 740.
T2
276 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ our salvation. All these things were written for us, for our
“ admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” ἢ
It would be difficult to find words more expressive of the view
for which we contend. And yet, perhaps, in the following pas-
sage that view is carried out so as to be still more strongly
enforced. It is a favorite reply of the Romanists and Tractators
upon this subject, to say, (like drowning men catching at a
straw,) Yes, the Scriptures are clear when the meaning has
been pointed out, but not before. What sort of an answer this
is, I leave the reader to determine, for it is almost impossible to
deal seriously with it. But be its force what it may, it is at
least demolished, as far as Chrysostom is concerned, by the
following passage: “ Why should I come to church, saith one,
“if I do not hear some one preach? This is it that hath
“ destroyed and marred everything. For what need is there of
“a preacher ? The need arises from our own laziness. For, why
“ is there any need of a sermon? ALL THINGS IN THE DIVINE
“ς ScRIPTURES ARE CLEAR AND. STRAIGHT; ALL THINGS THAT
““ ARE NECESSARY ARE MANIFEST.”* They are manifest, says
Chrysostom, without any preacher to make them so. There
needs nothing but the words themselves.
After these testimonies, it may seem almost superfluous to add
any others. But it may be well to show, that they stand not
alone in his works, but are borne out by many others scattered
throughout them.
1 Σκῆψις ταῦτα καὶ πρόφασις καὶ νωθείας παρακαλύμματα. Οὐ νοεῖς τὰ ἐγκεί-
μενα; Πῶς γὰρ δυνήσῃ νοῆσαί ποτε, μηδὲ ἁπλῶς ἐγκύψαι βουλόμενος; Λάβε
μετὰ χεῖρας τὸ βιβλίον" ἀνάγνωθι τὴν ἱστορίαν ἅπασαν" καὶ τὰ γνώριμα κατασχὼν,
τὰ ἄδηλα καὶ τὰ ἀσαφῆ πολλάκις ἔπελθε. Κἂν μὴ δυνηθῆς τῇ συνεχείᾳ τῆς ἀνα-
γνώσεως εὑρεῖν τὸ λεγόμενον, βάδισον πρὸς τὸν σοφώτερον, ἐλθὲ πρὸς τὸν διδά-
σκαλον, ἀνακοίνωσαι περὶ τῶν εἰρημένων, πολλὴν ἐπίδειξαι τὴν σπουδήν" κἂν ἴδῃ
σε ὃ Θεὸς τοσαύτῃ κεχρημένον τῇ προθυμίᾳ, οὐ περιόψεταί σου τὴν aypumviay καὶ
τὴν φροντίδα ἀλλὰ κἂν ἄνθρωπος μὴ διδάξῃ τὸ (ζητούμενον, αὐτὸς ἀποκαλύψει
πάντως. ᾿Αναμνήσθητι τοῦ Ἑὐνούχου τῆς βασιλίδος Αἰθιόπων ...... ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐ
πάρεστιν ὃ Φίλιππος νῦν: ἀλλὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ κινῆσαν τὸν Φίλιππον πάρεστι. Μὴ
καταφρονῶμεν τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν, ἀγαπητοί. Ταῦτα πάντα ἐγράφη δι᾽ ἡμᾶς, πρὸς
νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν, εἰς ods τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντησε. ID. ib. ὃ 3. i. 740.
2 τί εἰσέρχομαί, φησιν, εἰ οὐκ ἀκούω τινὸς ὁμιλοῦντος ; τοῦτο πάντα ἀπόλωλε
καὶ διέφθειρε. Τί γὰρ χρεία ὁμιλητοῦ; ᾿Απὸ τῆς ἠμετέρας ῥᾳθυμίας αὕτη ἡ χρεία
γέγονε. Διὰ τί γὰρ ὁμιλίας χρεία; πάντα cad} καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις
γραφαῖς" πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα. Lp. In 2 Thess. hom. 4. § ult. xi. 528.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 2.
Thus, speaking of the misinterpretations of Scripture by
heretics, he says,—“ Tell me not, that the Scripture is in fault ;
“it is not the Scripture that is in fault, but their folly .... I
“ say this im order that no one may accuse the Scriptures, but
* the folly of those who misinterpret what is well spoken. For
“ even the devil disputed with Christ from the Scriptures ; but
“the Scripture was not in fault, but the mind that misinter-
““ preted what was well said.” !
“ One thing only the Apostle aimed at, that the whole world
might learn something of those things that would be of service
to it, and that are able to transfer it from earth to heaven.
Therefore he did not conceal his instructions by any darkness and
obscurity .... but his doctrines are more manifest than the rays
of the sun... . He has made his words so easy to be understood,
** that all he has said is clear, not only to men, and those that are
* intelligent, but even to women and youths.” *
“ If we would thus search the Scriptures with accuracy, and
“ not superficially, we should be able to attain our salvation ;
* af we would constantly give our attention to them, we should
“ attain the knowledge of the orthodox faith, and the principles of
“ a perfect life.” ὃ
“ Wherever St. Paul says anything obscure, he elsewhere
interprets himself.” +
“ Look FOR NO OTHER TEACHER; THOU HAST THE ORACLES
“ or GoD; NO ONE TEACHES THEE LIKE THEM. For man often
1 Μή μοι λέγε ὅτι ἣ γραφὴ αἰτία οὐχὶ ἣ γραφὴ αἰτία, GAN ἡ ἀγνωμοσύνη
αὐτῶν...... Ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα μηδεὶς τὰς γραφὰς διαβάλλῃ, ἄλλὰ τὴν ἀἄγνωμο-
σύνην τῶν τὰ καλῶς εἰρημένα κακῶς ἑρμηνευόντων. Καὶ γὰρ 6 διάβολος ἀπὸ γρα-
av τῷ Χριστῷ διελέγετο: GAN οὐχ ἣ γραφὴ αἰτία, GAN ἡ διάνοια ἣ τὰ καλῶς
εἰρημένα κακῶς ἑρμηνεύουσα. Ip. Hom. De Sancto Phoca. § 8. ii. 708.
2 Ἔν μόνον ἐσπούδασεν, ὅπως ἣ οἰκουμένη πᾶσα μάθοι TL τῶν χρησίμων καὶ δυνα-
“μένων αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς μέταστῆσαι πρὸς τὸν οὐρανόν: Διὰ τούτο οὐδὲ ζόφῳ
τινὶ καὶ σκότῳ ἔκρυψεν ἑαυτοῦ τὴν διδασκαλίαν... .. -. ἀλλὰ τὰ τούτου δόγματα
τῶν ἡλιακῶν ἀκτίνων ἐστὶ φανερώτερα... .. -. τοσαύτην τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἐγκατέμιξεν
εὐκολίαν, ὧς μὴ μόνον ἄνδράσι καὶ συνετοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναιξὶ καὶ νέοις ἅπαντα
εἶναι τὰ λεγόμενα δῆλα. Ip. In Johann. hom. 2. (al. 1.) § 3. viii. 10.
' 3*Ay οὕτω τοίνυν θέλωμεν Tas γραφὰς ἐρευνᾷν μετὰ ἀκριβείας Kal μὴ ἁπλῶς,
δυνησόμεθα τῆς σωτηρίας τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐπιτυχεῖν" ἂν διὰ παντὸς αὐταῖς ἐνδιατρί-
βωμεν, καὶ δυγματων ὀρθότητα, καὶ βίον εἰσόμεθα ἠκριβωμένον. Ip. In Johann.
hom. 53. (al. 52.) § iii. viii. 318.
4 Πανταχοῦ yap ὅταν τι ἀσαφὲς εἴποι, ἑαυτὸν ἑρμηνεύει πάλιν. Ip. In 2 Cor.
hom. 9, § 1. x. 499.
278 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“hides many things through vain-glory and envy. Hear, I
* entreat you, all ye that have acare for your life, and get those
“ books that are the medicines of thesoul. . . . . Want of
* acquaintance with the Scriptures is the cause of all evils.’”?+
Many others might be added, to some of which I give a
reference below.”
Hence we meet in Chrysostom with constant exhortations to
the reading of Scripture, together with statements of the great
benefits that would be derived from its perusal, and the evils
arising from a want of acquaintance with it.?
And for the occasional obscurity of Scripture he gives this
reason ;— There is a great and unspeakable treasure, beloved,
“ in the words just read, and there needs an attentive mind, and
“a sober and vigilant judgment, that nothing may escape us of
“ what is hidden in these few words. For on this account the
“ merciful God has not permitted αἰ things that are found in
*‘ the Scriptures to be easy of perception, and manifest to us of
“ themselves, and from the bare reading, that he might rouse
“ our sluggishness, and that we might have to exercise great
* vigilance to derive the full benefit from them. For, those
“things that are found by labor and research, have usually a
“ better hold upon our minds; but the things that are easy
* usually escape quickly from our hearts.” *
1 Μηδὲ περιμείνῃς ἕτερον διδάσκαλον. ἔχεις τὰ λόγια TOD Θεοῦ, Οὐδείς σε
διδάσκει ὡς ἐκεῖνα. Οὗτος μὲν γὰρ πολλὰ καὶ διὰ κενοδοξίαν καὶ διὰ βασκανίαν
ἐπικρύπτει πολλάκις. ᾿Ακούσατε, παρακαλῶ, πάντες οἱ βιωτικοὶ, καὶ κτᾶσθε βιβλία
φάρμακα τῆς WuXTS..... . Τοῦτο πάντων αἴτιον τῶν κακῶν, τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι τὰς
γραφάς. Ip. In Coloss. hom. 9. § 1. xi. 391.
2 See in Genes. hom. 9. § 1. iv. 65. E. Ib. hom. 10. §7. iv. 79.D. In Genes.
serm. 3. ὃ 1. iv. 655. D, E. In Ps, 41.§ 7. v. 141. E. 142. A. In Matt. Prom.
seu hom. 1. ὃ 5. vii. 11. C. In 2 Cor. hom. 7. §§ 2,3. x. 482. E. and 484. Ὁ. In
Heb. hom. 8. § 4. xii. 89. A, C, D. To which we may add the passage, In Act.
hom. 33. § 4. ix. 258. E. already quoted, pp. 172,173 above. Also Pseudo-Chry-
sostomi Hom. de cxco nato. ὃ 1. mit. viii. app. 61. A. which is considered by
the Benedictines as written by an antient author, probably not much posterior
to Chrysostom,
5 See In Genes. hom. 29. ὃ 2. iv. 281. A, B, C. In Coloss. hom. 9. ὃ 1. xi.
390. D. In Genes. hom. 3. § 1. iv. 14. A, B. Ib. hom. 10. 8.8. iv. 81.C. Ib. hom,
24. § 1. iv. 216, D, E. Ib. hom. 60. ὃ 3. iv. 580. Ὁ, E. In Rom. Proem. § 1.
ix. 426. A, B.
4 πολὺς 6 θησαυρὸς Kal &paros, ἀγαπητοὶ, ἐν τοῖς πρόσφατον ἀναγνωσθεῖσι, Kat
δεῖ συντεταμένης διανοίας, καὶ λογισμοῦ νήφοντος καὶ διεγηγερμένου, ὥστε μηδὲν
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 279
Again; ‘ Why do you say, I know not the meaning of these
“words? On this very account it behoved you to apply your
“mind to them. But if not even that which is obscure rouses
“* your mind, much more would you have hastily run over them,
“if they were clear. For neither is this the case; neither are
_“ all things clear, that you may not be idle; nor are all things
“ obseure, that you may not despair... . Know you not
“the meaning of what is said? Then pray that you may
“earn it. But it is impossible that you can be ignorant of all
“ things, for many things are of themselves perfectly manifest
* and clear.” }
Further ; as it respects the interpretation of Scripture, and
the way in which we must ascertain its true meaning, he speaks
thus :—
* The Holy Scripture,’ he says, “ when it would teach us
“ anything of the kind, interprets itself, and does not suffer the
“ hearer to err.” 3
* You see how Scripture interprets itself.
And hence he exhorts us to observe the scope, the context, &c.,
of the passage whose meaning we seek.
“ As a building is weak without a foundation, so the Scripture
* profits us not, unless we ascertain its scope.” * “ It is not suffi-
393
ἡμᾶς παραδραμεῖν τῶν ἐγκεκρυμμένων τοῖς βραχέσι τούτοις ῥήμασι. Διὰ yap
τοῦτο καὶ ὅ φιλάνθρωπος Θεὸς οὐκ αὐτόθεν, καὶ ἐκ ψιλῆς ἀναγνώσεως πάντα τὰ ἐν
ταῖς γραφαῖς κείμενα εὐσύνοπτα καὶ δῆλα ἡμῖν τυγχάνειν συνεχώρησεν, ἵνα τὴν
νωθείαν ἡμῶν διεγείρῃ, καὶ πολλὴν τὴν ἀγρυπνίαν ἐπιδειξάμενοι, οὕτω τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν
ὠφέλειαν καρπωσώμεθα. Ἐἴωθε γάρ πως τὰ μὲν μετὰ πόνου καὶ ζητήσεως εὗρι-
σκόμενα μᾶλλον ἐμπήγνυσθαι ἡμῶν τῇ διανοίᾳ" τὰ δὲ μετ᾽ εὐκολίας, θᾶττον ἀφίπ-
τασθαι τῆς καρδίας τῆς ἡμετέρας. Ip. In Gen. hom. 32. § 1. iv. 316.
1 τί ons; οὐκ οἶδα τίνα ἐστὶ τὰ λεγόμενα. Δι᾿ αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο προσέχειν
ἐχρῆν. Ei δὲ οὐδὲ τὸ ἀσαφὲς διεγείρει σον τὴν ψυχὴν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον, εἰ σαφῆ
ἦν, παρέδραμες. Οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦτο, [? read, τοῦτο" ] οὔτε σαφῆ πάντα ἐστὶν, ἵνα μὴ
ῥαθυμήσῃς" οὔτε ἀσαφῆ, ἵνα μὴ ἀπογνῷς.. ἧ.. Οὐκ οἶσθα τὰ λεγόμενα ; Οὐκοῦν
εὖξαι ἵνα μάθῃς" μᾶλλον δὲ ἀμήχανον πάντα ἀγνοεῖν" τὰ γὰρ πολλὰ αὐτόθεν ἐστὶ
κατάδηλα καὶ σαφῆ. Ip. In 1 Cor. hom. 37. ὃ ult. x. 342.
2 Καίτοι ye τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς, ἐπειδὰν βούλεταί τι τοιοῦτον ἡμᾶς διδάσκειν,
ἑαυτὴν ἑρμηνευούσης, καὶ οὐκ ἀφιείσης πλανᾶσθαι τὸν ἀηροατήν. ID. In Genes,
hom. 18, § 3. iv. 103.
3 ‘Opas πῶς ἑαυτὴν Epunvever ἣ γραφὴ, kK. τ. A. Ip. In Ps. 44. § 6. v. 169.
4 “Ὡς γὰρ ἄνευ θεμελίου σαθρὰ ἡ οἰκοδομή" οὕτως ἄνευ τῆς εὑρέσεως TOD σκοποῦ
οὐκ ὠφελεῖ ἣ γραφή. Ib. In Ps. 3. ὃ 1. v. 2.
280 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ cient to say, It is written in the Scripture, but it is necessary
“ to read the whole of the context,” &c.1
Such are the directions he gives for ascertaining the sense of
Scripture,
But more especially he exhorts us to seek by prayer for the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, which he teaches us that every
Christian is entitled from the promises of God to look for indivi-
dually, to lead him into the knowledge of the meaning of Scrip-
ture.
Tf,’ he says, “ thou wouldest accustom thyself to pray with
“ earnestness, thou wouldest not want instruction from thy fellow-
“ servants, God himself enlightening thy mind without the inter-
“ vention of any one.” *
“ We have a merciful master, and when he sees us using
“ diligence, and showing a great desire to understand the divine
“ oracles, he does not permit us to stand in need of anything else,
“ but immediately enlightens our mind, and bestows upon us the
“qllumination that comes from him, and, according to his
excellent wisdom, implants in our soul the whole of the true
“ doctrine [of Christianity].” ὃ
“Tf you will attend diligently to the reading of Scripture,
“you shall need nothing else. For, the word of Christ is true,
“ that says, Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened
**fo you.” 4
1 Οὐ τοίνυν ἀρκεῖ τὸ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ἐν τῇ γραφῇ γέγραπται, ἀλλὰ χρὴ καὶ Thy
ἀκολουθίαν ἀναγνῶναι πᾶσαν, κ. τ. Χ. Ip. Hom. in illud, Domine non est in
homine, ete. ὃ 2. vi. 160. A similar passage occurs in his Comment. in Johann,
hom. 40. (al. 39.) § 1, viii. 236. And Pseudo-Chrys. hom. in dict. Apost. Non
quod volo facio, ete. § 1. viii, App. 189.
2 ᾽Εὰν ἐθίσης σεαυτὸν εὔχεσθαι μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας, ov δεήσῃ τῆς παρὰ τῶν συνδού-
λων διδασκαλίας, αὐτοῦ σοι τοῦ Θεοῦ χωρὶς μεσίτου τινὸς καταυγάζοντος τὴν διά-
voy. Ip. De incompr. Dei nat. cogtr. Anom. hom. 3. § 6. i. 469.
3 Καὶ γὰρ φιλάνθρωπον ἔχομεν δεσπότην, καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἴδῃ μεριμνῶντας ἡμᾶς, καὶ
πόθον πολὺν ἐπιδεικνυμένους πρὸς τὴν τῶν θείων λογίων κατανόησιν, οὐκ ἀφίησιν
ἑτέρου τινὸς δεηθῆναι, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως φωτίζει τὸν ἡμέτερον λογισμὸν, καὶ τὴν παρ᾽
αὐτοῦ ἔλλαμψιν χαρίζεται, καὶ κατὰ τὴν εὐμήχανον αὐτοῦ σοφίαν πᾶσαν τὴν
ἀληθῆ διδασκαλίαν ἐντίθησι τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ψυχῇ. Ip. In Genes. hom, 24. § 1,
iv. 216,
4 μεῖς ef θέλετε μετὰ προθυμίας προσέχειν TH ἀναγνώσει, οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου Sen-
ϑήσεσθε. ᾿Αψευδὴς γὰρ ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγος, εἰπών" ζητεῖτε, καὶ εὑρήσετε, κρού-
ete, καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν. ID. In Rom, Proem. ὃ 1. ix. 425.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 281
Many other passages of a similar nature might be added, to
some of which I give a reference below.!
Such is the testimony of one of the most illustrious of those
Fathers to whom our opponents are continually referring as the
supporters of their views. It is needless to add one word to
direct the judgment of any impartial reader. I say impartial,
because of those who accuse Scripture of obscurity, even in the
fundamental points, I will not venture to say, that they may not
do the same by these testimonies of Chrysostom, or anything
else that may be offered them.
Cyrit or ALEXANDRIA, (fl. a. 412.)
“ The law given through the learned Moses,” says Cyril of
Alexandria, ‘‘ was involved as it were in darkness and shadows,
* such, I mean, as arose from the letter. But in the decla-
“vations of the gospel, the beauty of the truth shines forth
“ unclouded and clear, and enlightens the mind, being poured
“ like light into the understandings of the pious.” "
“ Sufficient, sufficient for this [i. e. for obtaining a knowledge
“ of the faith] are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers, [1. e., as
“ the words following show, the inspired writers,| which if any
one would diligently study and vigilantly attend to, he would
“« immediately have his mind filled with divine light. For, they did
1 In Genes. hom. 35, ὃ 1. iv. 349. E. 350. C, D. Ib. ὃ 2. iv. 352. B,C. In
1 Thess. hom. 7. § ult. xi. 477. B, C.
2 ᾿Αχλυΐ μὲν γὰρ ofovel πως καὶ κατασκιάσμασι, τοῖς ἀπό γε φημὶ τοῦ γράμ-
ματος, ὃ διὰ τοῦ πανσόφου Μωσέως κατεπαχύνετο νόμος. Ἔν δέ γε τοῖς εὐαγγε-
λικοῖς κηρύγμασι γυμνὸν καὶ διαφανὲς τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκφαίνεται κάλλος, καὶ
καταφαιδρύνει τὸν νοῦν ταῖς τῶν εὐσεβούντων διανοίαις φωτὸς δίκην εἰσχεόμενον.
ΟΥὐκιῖῖα.. Atex. Comm. in Is. lib. 3. tom. i. Op. tom. ii. p. 861. The phrase
εὐαγγελικὸν κήρυγμα is used in other places for Scripture, thus,—mapocdévtwy
εἰς μέσον τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ ἀποστολικῶν κηρυγμάτων. Quod unus sit Christus,
Dial. tom. v. P. 1. p. 758. See also De 5. Trin. Dialog. 3. tom. v. P. 1. p. 476,
and again p. 477, The context in all these passages clearly shows, that Scripture
only is intended. And so the phrase “evangelica pradicatio ” is used by Cyprian :—
“Scriptum est, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest intrare in
regnum Dei. Quo in loco quidam, quasi evacuare possint humana argumentatione
predicationis Evangelice veritatem, catechumenos nobis opponunt,” ἄς. Ep.ad
Jubaian. Ep. 73. Op. ed. Fell. Pt. 2. p. 208.
282 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ not speak of themselves, but ‘ all Scripture is given by inspiration
“ of God, and is profitable. ” +
Again, on the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, he says, that
the error may easily be avoided, “for it is open to those who
“ desire it, easily to avoid the error, and to escape from the
“ pernicious and destructive doctrine of those of the opposite
“ party, by piously giving the due superiority to the declara-
“ tions of the sacred writers.” *
Again, opposing certain unorthodox views respecting the incar-
nation of our Lord, he says,— “ What, therefore, supposing
* this to have been the case, would have been the use of his
“ advent, or what the mode of his incarnation? But if any one
“ perchance shall ask, on what account this was done, [namely,
“ that he became incarnate,| he shall receive from us the reply,
“ the divine Scripture will teach you. Go, then, illustrious Sir,
“ inquire of the sacred Scriptures, and having well applied the eye
“ of your mind to the declarations of the holy Apostles, you shall
* then clearly see what you seck.” ὃ
Again; “ Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly suffi-
* cient, even so that those who have been nourished by it ought to
7 “Αλις γὰρ ἅλις αἱ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων εἰς τοῦτο συγγραφαὶ, ais εἴπέρ τις
ἕλοιτο νουνεχῶς ὁμιλεῖν καὶ ἐγρηγορότως προσφέρεσθαι, φωτὸς ἂν τοῦ θείου τὸν
οἰκεῖον εὐθὺς ἀναμεστώσειε νοῦν. Ἦσαν γὰρ οὐκ αὐτοὶ λαλοῦντες ἐν αὐτοῖς, πᾶσα
δὲ γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, Ip. De S. Trin, Dial. 1. fom.v. P.1. p.
388. The phrase τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων, here used to denote the inspired writers,
or probably more peculiarly the Apostles, is used also by EprpHantus for the
Apostles; Παρέλαβον γὰρ (says Epiphanius) of ταύτης [i. 6. Ἐκκλησίας παῖδες
παρὰ ἁγίων πατέρων, τουτέστι τῶν ἁγίων ᾿Αποστόλων, πίστιν φυλάττειν. Ancorat.
Op. ed. Par. 1622. vol. ii. p. 122.—And JEROME says,— Patriarchas quoque et
Prophetas (si tamen nos ab eis peccata non separent) nostros patres dicimus.” In
Eph. lib. ii. c. 3. tom. vii. col. 601. ed. Vallars. Ven. See also Aveust. De Trin.
lib. 2. 6. 9. tom. viii. col. 781.
2 B. Ὡς δεινόν γε, ὦ τᾶν, τὸ χρῆμα, καὶ δυσδιάφυκτος ἀληθῶς 7 τῆς δυσσεβείας
γραφή. A. Εὐδιάφυκτος μὲν οὖν" ἐφεῖται γὰρ δὴ τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν εὐκόλως ἄπο-
φοιτᾷν, καὶ τὸν ὀλετῆρα καὶ φθόρον τῶν διεναντίας διωθεῖσθαι λόγον, τὸ χρῆναι
νικᾷν ἀπονέμουσιν εὐσεβῶς ταῖς τῶν ἁγίων φωναῖς. Ip. De S. Trin. Dial. 4, Ib,
p. 505.
3 Ths οὖν by γένοιτο λοιπὺν τῆς ἐπιδημίας 6 Adyos; ἢ τίς ὁ τρόπος THs ἐνανθρωπή-
σεως; πέπρακται δὲ ὅτου χάριν, εἴ τις ἔροιτο τυχὸν, ἀντακούσεται map’ ἡμῶν" ἣ
θεία διδάξει γραφή. “10 δὴ, οὖν, ὦ γενναῖε, πυθοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων, καὶ ταῖς
τῶν ἁγίων ᾿Αποστόλων φωναῖς ἐνερείσα5 εὖ μάλα τῆς διανοίας τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν, ἄθρει
δὴ καλῶς τὸ (ητούμενον. In. De recta fide ad Theodos. tom. ν. P. 2. p. 17. The
observation is to be found also in his “ De incarn. Unigen. Dial.” tom. v. P. 1,
Ρ. 691,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 283
“ come forth wise and very prudent, and possessed of an under-
“ standing abundantly instructed in all things...... What that is
* profitable to us is not spoken by it? For, first, (what is also
* more excellent than all other things,) any one may see in it
“the glorious doctrine of the true knowledge of God......
* Moreover, in addition to this, it teaches us how to order aright
our life and conversation, and by its divine and sacred laws
* directs us in the way of righteousness, and makes the path of
* all equity clear to us.” !
Lastly, as it respects the interpretation of Scripture, he gives
such rules as these,—“ It behoves him who enters upon the
“ investigation of the divine Scriptures to observe the time at
“ which what is revealed is said, and the person by whom or
“ through whom, or of whom, it is spoken; for thus they who
“ wish rightly to understand may be preserved from error, and
* obtain a correct view of its meaning.” Such are the direc-
tions which he gives Christians for ascertaining the meaning of
Scripture.
It remains for our opponents to show, where he sends us to
“ Tradition” as the necessary and infallible interpreter of
Scripture.
Istporr oF Pexusivum. (fl. a, 412.)
“The sacred volumes of the divine Scriptures,” says Isidore
of Pelusium, “ are steps whereby we ascend to God.” ὃ
1 ῬΑπόχρη μὲν οὖν ἡ θεόπνευστος γραφὴ, καὶ πρός γε Td δεῖν ἀποφάναι σοφοὺς
καὶ δοκιμωτάτους, καὶ διαρκεστάτην ἔχοντας σύνεσιν τοὺς ἐντεθραμμένους αὐτῇ.
ΕΝ ots Τί γὰρ τῶν ὀνησιφόρων οὐκ εἴρηται Tap αὐτῆς ; πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ, ὃ καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τιμαλφέστερον, κατίδοι τις ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς τῆς ἀληθοῦς θεοπτίας
ἐναστράπτοντας λόγους .......- εἶτα πρὸς τούτοις καὶ τοὺς τῆς εὐζωΐας ἡμῖν
εἰσηγῆται τρόπους, νόμοις δὲ θείοις καὶ ἱεροῖς ἀπευθύνει πρὸς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ
μὴν καὶ ἁπάσης ἡμῖν ἐπιεικείας ἐναργῆ καθίστησι τρίβον. In. Contr. Julian. lib.
vii. tom. vi. Part. 2. p. 230, 231. See also the following context in pp. 291, 2.
2 Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν προσήκει τὸν εἰς ἔρευναν τῶν θείων εἰσβαίνοντα γραφῶν, τὸν
καιρὸν ἐπιτηρεῖν καθ᾽ ὃν λέγεται τὸ δηλούμενον, καὶ πρόσωπον παρ᾽ οὗ, ἢ SV οὗ, ἢ
περὶ οὗ λέγεται' οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἀπλανὴς ἡ διάνοια φυλαχθείη τοῖς ὀρθῶς ἐθέλουσι
νοεῖν. Ip. Thesaurus, tom. v. Part. 1. p. 199.
3 Αἱ δὲ ἱεραὶ πτυκταὶ τῶν μαρτυρουμένων θείων γραφῶν, τῆς πρὸς Θεόν εἰσιν
ἀναβάσεως κλίμακες. IstDoR. Punus. Ep. lib. i. Ep. 369. ed. Paris. 1638.
p- 96.
284 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“Tf God had had respect only to his own dignity, and not
“the profit of the reader, he would have used heavenly and
“ divine words and examples. But since he was legislating for
“ men that are weak and in need of human words (for thus they
“were able easily to understand things above them), he ex-
“ pressed his divine doctrines in common words, to the intent
“ that even a woman and a child, and the most ignorant of all
“men, might obtain some profit even from the very hearing.
“ For, the word having a consideration for the salvation of the
“ multitude, and even rustics, is expressed with so much clear-
“ ness through the philanthropy of the legislator, as to deprive
“ no one of the benefit proportioned to his powers; nor hath it
“ neglected the wiser of mankind; for in this so great clearness,
such unutterable words dwell like treasures, that even the
*€ wisest and most learned of men are lost in the profundity of
* the thoughts, and often confess themselves overcome by the
incomprehensibility of the wisdom.” !
“Tf the truth be joined to eloquent language, it is able to
*‘ profit the educated, but to all others it will be of no use or
advantage. Wherefore the Scripture hath declared the truth
“ἐς in simple language, that both the unlearned and the wise, and
“ even children and women, might learn it. For by this the
‘‘ wise are in no respect injured; but by the other [1. 6. Serip-
“ture being indited in superior language] the greater part of
* the world would have been injured; and if it behoved it to
“ consider the few, it more especially behoved it to consider the
“many ; and since it has considered all, it is clearly shown to
** be divine and heavenly.”’”
1 Ei yap πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀξίαν μόνον προσέσχεν ὃ Θεὸς, καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὴν ὠφέ-
λειαν τῶν ἐντευξομένων, οὐρανίοις ἂν καὶ θείοις λόγοις τε καὶ παραδείγμασιν ἐχρή."
σατο. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐπειδὰν ἀνθρώποις ἐνομοθέτει ἀσθενέσι. τυγχάνουσι, καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων
δεομένοις λόγων, (οὕτω γὰρ ῥᾳδιως τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτοὺς νοῆσαι ἠδύναντο) ἰδιωτικαῖς
λέξεσιν ἐκέρασε τὰ θεῖα μαθήματα, ἵνα καὶ γυνὴ καὶ παῖς καὶ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων
ἀμαθέστατος κερδάνῃ τὶ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀκροάσεως: τῆς γὰρ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ
ἀγελαιοτέρων φροντίσας σωτηρίας ὃ λόγος, σαφηνείᾳ τοσαύτῃ διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν
τοῦ νομοθέτου κραθεὶς, οὐδένα τῆς κατὰ δύναμιν ὠφελείας ἀποστερεῖ" οὔτε δὲ τῶν
σοφωτέρων ἠμέλησεν" ἐν τοσαύτῃ γὰρ σαφηνείᾳ οὕτως ἀπόῤῥητοι λόγοι καθάπερ
θησαυροί τινες ἐνοικοῦσιν, ὡς καὶ τοὺς σοφωτάτους καὶ ἐλλογιμωτάτους τῶν ἀνθρώ-
πων πρὸς τὸ βάθος τῶν νοημάτων ἰλιγγιᾷν, καὶ ποραχωρεῖν πολλακις τῷ ἀκατα-
λήπτῳ τῆς σοφίας. ΤΡ. ib. lib. ii. Epist. 5. p. 129.
2 Εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῇ καλλιεπείᾳ συναφθείη, δύναται μὲν τοὺς πεπαιδευμένου"
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK: 285
** The sacred and heavenly oracles, since they were spoken
*‘ and written for the benefit of all mankind, were expressed in
“ plain language.... All those who are engaged in husbandry,
*‘ and the arts, and other occupations of life, derive profit from
“its clearness ; learning both what is proper and what is just
“and what is useful in a moment of time.” !
And, lastly, he says,—“ If all things were plain, where should
“* we make use of our understanding, there not being any inves-
* tigation to make? But if all things were obscure, thus also
“ we should fall, there being no discovery of the truth. But
“πον. through those parts that are plain, those that are obscure
‘© are in a manner understood.” *
Turoporet. (fl. a. 423.)
We pass on to one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers,
Theodoret ; from whom we have the following testimonies as to
the suitability and power of Scripture to teach the faith.
“The divine Scripture,” he says, “is accustomed to accom-
“ modate its lessons to those who are to be instructed; and to
* the perfect, to offer that which is perfect ; and to the ignorant,
“ elementary points and things suited to their ability.” ὃ
“The divine Scripture accommodates its language to men ;
and orders its words so that they may be able to understand.’ +
ὠφελῆσαι, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἄχρηστος ἔσται καὶ ἀνωφελής. Al ὃ καὶ ἡ
γραφὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν πεζῷ λόγῳ ἡρμήνευσεν, ἵνα καὶ ἰδιῶται καὶ σοφοὶ καὶ παῖδες
καὶ γυναῖκες μάθοιεν. Ἔκ μὲν γὰρ τούτου οἱ μὲν σοφοὶ οὐδὲν παραβλάπτονται" ἐκ
δ᾽ ἐκείνου τὸ πλέον τῆς οἰκουμένης μέρος προεβλάβη" ἄν τινων οὖν ἐχρῆν φροντί-
σαι, μάλιστα μὲν τῶν πλειόνων. Ἐπειδὰν δὲ καὶ πάντων ἐφρόντισεν, δείκνυται
λαμπρῶς θεία οὖσα καὶ οὐράνιος. Ip. ib. lib. iv. Ep. 67. p. 449.
1 Of ἱεροὶ καὶ οὐράνιοι χρησμοὶ, ἐπειδὰν πρὸς ὠφέλειαν πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος
ἐῤῥέθησαν καὶ ἐγράφησαν, τῇ σαφηνείᾳ expdOnoav...... πάντες δ᾽ οἱ γεωργίαις
καὶ τέχναις καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἀσχολίαις τοῦ βίου σχολάζοντες, ὠφελοῦνται ἐκ τῆς
σαφηνείας" καὶ τὸ πρέπον, καὶ τὸ δίκαιον, καὶ τὸ συμφέρον ἐν ἄκαριαίᾳ καιροῦ ῥοπῇ
μανθάνοντες. In. ib. lib. iv. Ep. 91. p. 461.
3 Εἰ μὲν yap πάντα ἦν δῆλα, ποῦ TH συνέσει ἐχρησάμεθα, μὴ οὔσης ζγτήσεως;
εἰ δὲ πάντα ἄδηλα, καὶ οὕτως ἀναπεπτώκειμεν ἂν, μὴ οὔσης εὑρέσεως" νῦν δὲ διὰ
τῶν δήλων καὶ τὰ ἄδηλα τρόπον τινὰ καταλαμβάνεται. ID. ib. lib. iv. Ep. 82.
Ρ. 458.
3 Μετρεῖν εἴωθε τοῖς παιδευομένοις ἣ θεία γραφὴ τὰ μαθήματα: καὶ τοῖς μὲν
τελείοις προσφέρειν τὰ τέλεια, τοῖς ἀτελέσι δὲ τὰ στοιχειώδη, καὶ τῇ σφῶν δυνά-
μει συμβαίνοντα. 'THEODORET. Quest. in Gen. q. 1. Op. ed. Schulz. Hale 1774
et seq. tom. i. p. 3.
4 Προσφόρως τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἣ θεία γραφὴ διαλέγεται" καὶ ὡς ἀκούειν δύνανται
μετασχηματίζει τοὺς λόγους. In. ib. ᾳ. 52. tom. i. p. 65.
286 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ Some persons having become affected with this disease of
** mind, have undertaken to accuse the divine Scripture, and
* especially the prophecies, as if they were obscure. To whom
* the divine Paul would say, ‘ But if our gospel be hid, it is hid
* to them that are lost ;᾽ for ‘we speak wisdom among them
“that are perfect.’ And agreeable to these are the words
** spoken by our Master and Saviour to the holy Apostles, ‘To
* you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but to
“ΚΕ them it is not given.’ And teaching them the cause of this,
“he directly adds, ‘ For, seeing they see not, and hearing they
“do not understand ;’ for they, saith he, willingly draw upon
“ themselves the cloud of ignorance; for if they had turned to
“the Lord, as the divine Apostle says, the veil would be
“removed. Therefore the divine oracles are not obscure to all,
“ but only to those who are willingly blind...... Let No ONE
“ THEREFORE, AND ESPECIALLY AMONG THE PUPILS oF ΡΙΕΤΥ,
“5 BE SO BOLD AGAINST THE DIVINE SPIRIT AS TO CHARGE HIS
** WORDS WITH OBSCURITY ; but earnestly secking to understand
the sacred words, let him exclaim with the divine David,
““¢Qpen thou mine eyes, and I shall behold wondrous things
* out of thy law.’ For he who seeks this knowledge for his
** profit shall assuredly obtain his request.” 4
And he gives the following reason for the occasional obscurity
of Scripture. ‘There are occasions when the divine revelations
* are spoken and written cenigmatically, that those things which
1 Ταύτῃ περιπεσόντες τῇ νόσῳ τινὲς τῆς θείας γραφῆς κατηγορεῖν ἐπεχείρησαν,
διαφερόντως δὲ τῶν προφητικῶν θεσπισμάτων ὡς ἀσαφείᾳ κεκαλυμμένων. Πρὸς
οὕς ἂν εἰκότως 6 θεσπέσιος εἴποι Παῦλος" εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστι κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέ-
λιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶ κεκαλυμμένον: σοφίαν γὰρ λαλοῦμεν ἐν
τοῖς τελείοις. Συμφωνεῖ δὲ τούτοις καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Δεσπότου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους ᾿Αποστόλους εἰρημένα. Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς
βασιλείας, ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται" καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν διδάσκων εὐθὺς ἐπάγει: Ὅτι βλέ-
ποντες οὐ βλέπουσι, καὶ ἀκούοντες οὗ συνιοῦσιν" αὐτοὶ γάρ φησιν ἑκόντες ἐπισπῶνται
τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ νέφος" ἐὰν γὰρ ἐπιστρέψωσι πρὸς Κύριον, ἣ φησὶν ὃ θεῖος ᾿Απόστολος,
περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμας. Οὐ τοίνυν πᾶσιν ἐστὶν ἀσαφῆ τὰ θεῖα, ἀλλὰ τοῖς
ἐθελουσίως τυφλώττουσιν....... Μηδεὶς τοίνυν, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας
τροφίμων, κατὰ τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος θρασυνέσθω, τοῖς τούτου λόγοις ἄσάφειαν
ἐπιμεμφόμενος" ἀλλὰ νοῆσαι τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἐφιέμενος λόγους μετὰ τοῦ θεσπεσίου
βοάτω AaBid- ἀποκάλυψον τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου, καὶ κατανοήσω τὰ θαυμάσια ἐκ
τοῦ νόμου σου" τεύξεται γὰρ πάντως τῆς αἰτήσεως, ἐπ᾿ ὠφελείᾳ τὴν γνῶσιν ἐπαγ-
γείλας. Ip. in Ezech, Pref. tom. ii. pp. 670—2.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 287
“ are revealed to the saints may not be manifest to all. For
“ thus, if they were equally discerned by all, they would become
* objects of contempt.” 1
Further, he says,—“ For, the things of which we are ignorant
we learn from the inspired Scripture.” ἢ
Again; “ For, as great as is the difference between God
“ and the devil, so great is the difference between the teaching
“ of God and that of the devil. And the beauty of the divine
“ oracles sending forth the beams of a light suited to the faculties
“of man, when compared with those fables, will more clearly
* show this.”
And throughout the work from which this extract is taken,
viz. that on heretical fables, as well as in other places, he con-
tinually refers to the divine Scripture, and to that only, as his
teacher in the doctrines he inculcates.
Again ; he says,—“ For, all the preachers of the truth, the
“ Prophets and Apostles I mean, were not possessed of the
“ Grecian eloquence, but, being full of the true wisdom, brought
* to all the heathen, both Greeks and barbarians, the divine
* doctrine, and filled the whole earth and sea with their writings
“ concerning virtue and piety. And now all men have left the
“ follies of the philosophers and take delight in the lessons of
“fishermen and publicans, and reverence the writings of a
“ shoemaker. They are acquainted with Matthew and Bartho-
“ lomew and James, nay, moreover, with Moses and David and
“ Tsaiah, and the rest of the Apostles and Prophets, as familiarly
“ as with the names of their children. And straightway they
“ laugh at their names as barbarous. But we lament over their
“ madness ; in that, seeing the Grecian eloquence overcome by
“men of a barbarous tongue, and their beautifully composed
“fables altogether put to flight, and the Attic syllogisms de-
1 Αἰνιγματωδῶς δέ ἐστιν ὅτε τὰ θεῖα λέγεται καὶ γράφεται, ἵνα μὴ πάσιν ἢ
δῆλα τὰ τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποκαλυπτόμενα: οὕτω γὰρ ἂν εὐκαταφρόνητα ἐγεγόνει ὁμοίως.
ὑπὸ πάντων γνωριζόμενα. Ip. in Dan. c. 9. tom. ii. p. 1238.
2A γὰρ ἀγνοοῦμεν, ἐκεῖθεν [i. 6. ek θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς ] μανθάνομεν. Ib. in
2 Tim. iii. 16. tom. iii. p. 691.
3 “Ocov yap Θεοῦ καὶ διαβόλου τὸ μέσον, τοσαύτη τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ διαβόλου
διδασκαλίας διαφορά. Καὶ τοῦτο δείξει σαφέστερον τοῖς μύθοις ἐκείνοις παρατιθέ-
μενον τῶν θείων λογίων τὸ κάλλος, τὰς τοῦ νοεροῦ φωτὸς ἐκπέμπον μαρμαρυγάς,
Ip. Her. Fab. lib, v. Pref. tom. iv. p. 376, 377.
283 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ stroyed by the solecisms of fishermen, they do not blush nor
* hide themselves, but impudently fight for their error.....
* But we clearly demonstrate the power of the Apostolical and
“ Prophetical doctrines, for all places under the sun are full of
“ these discourses..... And we may see not only the teachers
“ of the Church acquainted with these doctrines, but even shoe-
“ makers and smiths and workers in wool, and other handy-
“ craftsmen, and in like manner women, not only the educated,
“ but also those who work for their living, both needle-women
“and moreover servant-girls. And not only those who live in
“ cities, but also those who live in the country, have obtained
“ this knowledge. And you may find even ditchers and herds-
“men and gardeners conversing respecting the divine Trinity,
“and concerning the creation of the universe, and knowing
“much more of human nature than Aristotle and Plato; and
** moreover, having a regard for virtue and avoiding vice, and
“ fearing the looked-for punishments, and awaiting without
“ doubts the divine tribunal, and philosophizing respecting
“the life that is eternal and indestructible, and for the sake
“of the kingdom of heaven gladly undertaking every kind
“of Jabor, and WHO HAVE LEARNT THESE THINGS FROM
“NO ONE ELSE BUT FROM THOSE WHOM YOU CALL BAR-
““ BARIAN-TONGUED.” ἢ
1 Καὶ γὰρ ἅπαντες τῆς ἀληθείας οἱ κήρυκες, προφῆται φημὶ καὶ ἀπόστολοι, τῆς
μὲν Ἑλληνικῆς ov μετέλαχον εὐγλωττίας" ἔμπλεοι δὲ τῆς ἀληθινῆς ὄντες σοφίας,
πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι, καὶ ἑλληνικοῖς καὶ βαρβαρικοῖς, τὴν θείαν διδασκαλίαν προσή-
νεγκαν" καὶ πᾶσαν γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν τῶν ἀρετῆς“ πέρι καὶ εὐσεβείας ξυγγραμμάτων
ἐνέπλησαν. Καὶ νῦν ἅπαντες, τῶν φιλοσόφων τοὺς λήρους καταλιπόντες, τοῖς
τῶν ἁλιέων καὶ τελωνῶν ἐντρυφῶσι μαθήμασι, καὶ τὰ τοῦ σκυτοτόμου ξυγγράμ-
ματα περιέπουσι...... Τὸν δὲ Ματθαῖον, καὶ τὸν Βαρθολομαῖον, καὶ τὸν Ἰάκωβον,
καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸν Μωῦσέα, καὶ τὸν Δαβὶδ, καὶ τὸν Ἡσαΐαν, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστό-
λους τε καὶ προφήτας, οὕτως ἴσασιν ws τὰς τῶν παίδων προσηγορία. Αὐτίκα
τοίνυν καὶ κωμῳδοῦσιν, ws βάρβαρα, τὰ ὀνόματα' ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτῶν τὴν ἐμπληξίαν ὃλο-
φυρόμεθα: ὅτι δὴ ὁρῶντες βαρβαροφώνους ἀνθρώπους τὴν ἑλληνικὴν εὐγλωττίαν
νενικηκότας, καὶ τοὺς κεκομψευμένου5 μύθους παντελῶς ἐξεληλαμένους, καὶ τοὺς
ἁλιευτικοὺς σολοικισμοὺς τοὺς ἀττικοὺς καταλελυκότας ξυλλογισμοὺς, οὐκ ἐρυθρι-
Gow, οὐδ᾽ ἐγκαλύπτονται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀναίδην ὑπερμαχοῦσι τῆς πλάνη»....... Ἡμεῖς
δὲ, τῶν ἀποστολικῶν καὶ προφητικῶν δογμάτων τὸ κράτος ἐναργῶς ἐπιδείκνυμεν"
πᾶσα γὰρ 7 ὑφήλιος τῶνδε τῶν λόγων GvdmAEws...... Καὶ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν ταῦτα
εἰδότας τὰ δόγματα, οὐ μόνους γε τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοὺς διδασκάλους, ἀλλὰ καὶ
σκυτοτόμους, καὶ χαλκοτύπους, καὶ ταλασιουργοὺς, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποχειροβιώ-
Tous’ καὶ γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως, οὐ μόνον τὰς λόγων μετεσχηκυίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ χερνή-
τιδας, καὶ ἀκεστρίδας, καὶ μέντοι καὶ θεραπαίναξ᾽ καὶ οὐ μόνον ἀστοὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 289
Again, in one of his Letters, he says,—‘ For the sake of this
“we are accustomed from our cradles to meditate upon the
“ sacred Scripture, and draw from it as froma breast, that when
“ affliction comes upon us, we may apply the Spirit’s teaching
“ as a healing medicine.” !
And as to the means by which we may be enabled to “ pene-
trate into the depths” of the Divine word, we have already seen
from the extracts given in a previous page” what is Theodoret’s
view on that point; namely, that it is by the inward teaching of
the Holy Spirit.
Lastly, in the sermons attributed by some to Theodoret, but
by others to Eutherius, we meet with the following passage.
Speaking of those who neglected the study of the Scriptures,
the writer adds,—“ But we, confiding in the truth of the
“ mystery, and in the aid of him who cannot lie, who says,
“« «very one that seeketh findeth,’ both seek as we ought, and
“ find what we ought, and speak with demonstration, and hear
“ with a sincere purpose of mind, so that we may persuade those
“ that belong to us, and convince our adversaries, and enrich
“ ourselves by the search, and not propose inconsistent doctrine.
“ Shall I neglect the Scriptures ? Whence then shall I obtain
“ knowledge 2? Shall I relinquish knowledge? Whence, then,
“ shall I obtain faith ?. . . . The Scripture is the food of the soul.
“. . .. By the holy Scriptures is the manifestation of things
“ hidden, the establishment of our hopes, the fulfilment of the
“‘ promises, the discovery of the Saviour..... But they who
“ desire to be themselves the judges of their own doctrines, drive us
χωρητικοὶ τήνδε Thy γνῶσιν ἐσχήκασι: καὶ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ σκαπανέας, καὶ βοη-
λάτας, καὶ φυτουργοὺς, περὶ τῆς θείας διαλεγομένους Τριάδος, καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν
ὅλων δημιουργίας, καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν εἰδότας ᾿Αριστοτέλους πολλῷ μᾶλλον
καὶ Πλάτωνος" καὶ μέντοι καὶ ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελουμένους, καὶ κακίαν ἐκκλίνοντας, καὶ
τὰ κολαστήρια δεδιότας τὰ προσδοκώμενα, καὶ τὸ θεῖον δικαστήριον ἀνενδοιάστως
προσμένοντας, καὶ τῆς αἰωνίου πέρι καὶ ἀνωλέθρου φιλοσοφοῦντας ζωῆς, καὶ τῶν
οὐρανῶν ἕνεκα βασιλείας πάντα πόνον ἀσπασίως αἱρουμένους" καὶ ταῦτα, οὐ παρ᾽
ἄλλου του μεμαθηκότας, ἀλλὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ods ὑμεῖς βαρβαροφώνους ἀποκαλεῖτε.
Ip. Gree. affect. Curatio. Disp. 5. tom. iv. pp. 897---41.
1 τούτου yap δὴ χάριν εὐθὺς ἐκ σπαργάνων οἷόν τινα θηλὴν ἕλκομεν τῆς ἱερᾶς
γραφῆς τὴν μελέτην, ἵν’ ὅταν ἡμῖν προσπέσῃ πόθος, προσενέγκωμεν ἀλεξίκακον
φάρμακον τὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ip. Hpist. 14. tom iv. p. 1072,
5 See above, pp 189, 190.
VOL. III. U
290 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
« from the Scriptures, under the pretext of not being presumptuous,
“ as if they were incomprehensible, but in reality in order to avoid
“ being convicted by them of their own false doctrine.” *
Fuiecentivus oF Ruspa. (fl. a. 507.)
“The word of the Lord,” says Fulgentius, “ which we all
“ ought to hear, not only attentively but wisely, and which we
“ ought to obey with humility and delight, everywhere preserv-
“ine the balance of its moderation, so that neither the sheep
“ might be without pasture, nor the shepherds without food,
“ oives some commands specially to us alone, and some generally
“ both to us and you. For to us, that is the servants whom that
“ Father of the family, the Lord of all things, has appointed for
“this purpose in his great house, that we should minister the
“‘ word of grace to his people, is specially enjoined the duty of
“holy preaching ; but generally both to us and you there is
“ enjoimed a salutary obedience to his commands. In which
“ commands, as in most plentiful dishes, a spiritual supply of
“heavenly delights so abounds, that in the word of God there
“is ample provision for the perfect to eat, and ample provision
« for the little one to suck. For there is both the milky drink,
“ by which the tender infancy of the faithful may be nourished,
“‘ and the solid food from which the robust youth of the perfect
“ may receive a spiritual increase of holy virtue. There provi-
“ sion is fully made for the salvation of those whom the Lord
“ vouchsafes to save; there is to be found what is suitable to
“ every age, there what is agreeable to every profession ; there
“ we hear the precepts we ought to obey, there we learn the
“‘ yewards we may expect; there is the command which feaches
1 Ἡμεῖς θαῤῥοῦντες TH ἀληθείᾳ τοῦ μυστηρίου, καὶ τῇ βοηθείᾳ Tod ἀψευδοῦς
εἰπόντος, Πᾶς 6 ζητῶν εὑρίσκει, καὶ ζητοῦμεν ὡς δεῖ, καὶ εὑρίσκομεν ἃ δεῖ, καὶ
μετὰ ἀποδείξεως λέγομεν, καὶ μετὰ προθέσεως γνησίας ἀκούομεν, ὡς καὶ τοὺς
οἰκείους πείθειν, καὶ τοὺς ἐναντίους ἐλέγχειν, καὶ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς διὰ τῆς ἐρεύνης κερ-
δαίνειν, καὶ μὴ ἀσύστατον πρᾶγμα δεικνύειν. ᾿Αμελήσω γραφῶν: πόθεν οὖν ἣ
γνώσις; Καταλείψω γνῶσιν" πόθεν ἣ πίστις ;.... «. Τροφὴ ψυχῆς 7 γραφή.......
Ἔκ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν ἣ τῶν ἀδήλων φανέρωσις, ἣ τῶν ἐλπίδων βεβαίωσις, ἣ τῶν
ὑποσχέσεων ἔκβασις, 7 τοῦ Σωτῆρος εὕρεσι5.. .. «. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οἱ βουλόμενοι τὰ ἑαυτῶν
κρίνειν ἀπείργουσι τῶν γραφῶν, προφάσει μὲν τοῦ μὴ κατατολμᾷν, ὧς ἄπροσίτων"
τῇ δὲ ἀληθείᾳ ὑπὲρ τοῦ φεύγειν τὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔλεγχον τῆς οἰκείας κακοδοξίας.
THEODOR. seu EvTHERTI Serm. 2. tom. v. pp. 1124—6. This homily has been
attributed to Athanasius. See ATHANAS. Op. ed. Ben. tom. ii. pp. 562, 3. (ed-
Col. tom. ii. pp. 295, 6.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 291
* us in the letter, and leads us to knowledge ; there the promise
“ which draws us through grace and leads us to glory.” *
Grecory. (fl. a. 590.)
We conclude, as before, with the testimony of the celebrated
Gregory, commonly called the Great.
“The divine word,” he says, “as by its mysteries it exercises
“ the wise, so for the most part it cherishes the simple by that
“ which it contains on the surface. It openly sets forth that
* by which it may nourish the little ones, it keeps secret that
“ by which it may hold the minds of the lofty in admiration.
“It is, so to speak, like a river that is smooth and deep, in
“ which both a lamb may wade, and an elephant may swim.” ?
And for its occasional obscurity he thus assigns the cause ;—
“ΤῊ very obscurity of the oracles of God is of great use, be-
* cause it exercises the understanding, that it may be expanded
“by the labor, and may understand when in exercise that
€ which it could not understand when idle. It has also another
1 “ Dominicus sermo, quem debemus omnes non solum studiose verum etiam
sapienter audire, cui nos oportet humiliter ac delectabiliter obedire, modera-
tionis suze tenens ubique temperiem, ut nec ovibus desint pabnla, nec pasto-
ribus alimenta: qudam specialiter solis precipit nobis, quedam vero gene-
raliter et nobis et vobis. Nobis namque, id est servis, quos pater ile familias
rerum omnium dominus, ad hoc in sua magna domo constituit, ut populo ejus
verbum gratiz ministremus, specialiter injungitur sancte predicationis officium ,
generaliter vero nobis et vobis salutaris indicitur obedientia mandatorum. In
quibus denuo mandatis, tanquam ditissimis ferculis, sic ccelestium deliciarum copia
spiritalis exuberat, ut in verbo Dei abundet quod perfectus comedat, abundet
etiam quod parvulus sugat. Ibi est enim simul et lacteus potus, quo tenera fidelium
nutriatur infantia, et solidus cibus, quo robusta perfectorum juventus spiritalia
sancte virtutis accipiat incrementa. Ibi prorsus ad salutem consulitur universis
quos Dominus salvare dignatur ; ibi est quod omni ztati congruat, ibi quod omni
professioni conveniat ; ibi audimus precepta que faciamus, ibi cognoscimus premia
que speremus ; ibi est jussio que nos per litteram doceat, et instruat ad scientiam ;
ibi promissio que per gratiam trahat et perducat ad gloriam.” FuLGENTIISerm.
De Dispensat. Dom. Serm. 1. Op. ed. Mang. Paris. 1684. col. 546; or, ed. Ven.
1742. p. 248.
2 «Divinus etenim sermo sicut mysteriis prudentes exercet, sic plerumque
superficie simplices refovet. Habet in publico unde parvulos nutriat; servat in
secreto unde mentes sublimium in admiratione suspendat. Quasi quidam quippe
est fluvius, ut ita dixerim, planus et altus, in quo et agnus ambulet et elephas
natet.” GreG. Magn. Epist. ad Leand. prefix. ad Moral. sive Expos. in Job.
Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. col. 5, 6.
u 2
292 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ greater advantage, inasmuch as the understanding of the
“ sacred Scripture, which, if in all points it were free from diffi-
“ culty, would be held cheap, gives the mind, when found in
“ certain more obscure passages, so much greater pleasure as in
“ the search it fatigues the mind with greater labor.”! It is
not “ Tradition,” then, to which we are directed, to teach us
the meaning of the obscure passages, but a more careful and
attentive examination of them,
Upon the strength of these testimonies, then, we maintain,
that the weight of Patristical testimony is, beyond all reasonable
contradiction, entirely in our favor. The clearness, indeed, with
which most of the Fathers have asserted the view for which we
contend, makes it a matter of surprise, that any one at all ac-
quainted with their writings should venture to claim them as
opposed to it.
There remains, however, one more point in the system of our
opponents, respecting which we have to inquire the sentiments
of the Fathers; to which I now proceed.
SECTION VI.— WHETHER PATRISTICAL TRADITION IS THE GROUND
UPON WHICH OUR BELIEF IN THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
MUST BE FOUNDED.
There remains for consideration the question, Upon what
grounds the Fathers considered that belief in the inspiration of
Scripture should rest. I have said, in a former page,” that
they did not make Church-Tradition the ground for belief in this
doctrine ; and I shall now endeavour to show the truth of this,
by citing various passages from the works of some of the most
eminent among them, in which the grounds for belief in this
doctrine are pointed out ; and a very different view taken of the
subject from that maintained by our opponents. ;
1 “ Magne utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei, quia exercet sensum,
ut fatigatione dilatetur, et exercitatus capiat quod capere non posset otiosus.
Habet quoque adhue alind majus, quia Scripture sacre intelligentia, qua, si in
cunctis esset aperta, vilesceret, in quibusdam locis obscurioribus tanto majore
dulcedine inventa reficit, quanto majore labore fatigat animum quesita.” Tp. In
Ezech. lib. i. hom. 6. tom. i. col. 1213.
Sav Ol αἱ. ἢ
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 293
Justin Martyr. (fl. a. 140.)
Let us observe, first, the ground upon which Justin Martyr
makes his faith in Scripture as the word of God, to rest; and
which he proposes to others, as a proper foundation for their
faith in it as such.
In his Dialogue with Trypho and his companions, he gives
an account of the mode of his conversion ; and attributes it to
a conversation with an aged and venerable person, whom he
had fallen in with in a solitary place, to which he had retired
for the purpose of meditation. Giving the details of this con-
versation, he says, that, when he put the question, how he
might attain the knowledge of the truth, if not in philosophy,
his venerable Christian instructor gave him this answer :—
“There were certain men, a long time since, more antient than
* all those called philosophers, blessed and just men, and lovers
““ of God, who spoke under the influence of the Divine Spirit,
“ and prophesied of things that were to come, which things are
* now in the course of fulfilment ; and men call them Prophets.
“ These alone saw and declared to men the truth, neither re-
“ garding with undue respect, nor dreading, any one, not over-
“come by the desire of glory, but speaking those things only
“‘ which they heard and saw, being filled with the Holy Spirit.
““ And their books still remain to the present time ; and he who
“ yeads and believes them, is very greatly improved in know-
“ ledge, respecting both the beginning and end of things, and
“ whatever it behoves a philosopher to know. For they did
“ not write in the way of demonstration, as being placed above
“the necessity of any demonstration as faithful witnesses of
“the truth. And the things which have come to pass, and are
“ now happening, compel men to believe the things spoken by
“them. And moreover they were worthy to be believed, on
“ account of the miracles which they wrought; since they also
slorified God, the Maker of the Universe, and Father of all,
* and preached Christ his Son, who was sent by him; which
“ the false prophets, influenced by a spirit of error and impurity,
“neither did nor do; but presume to work certain miracles
“to frighten men, and glorify spirits of error and deyils.
294. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ But pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be
“ opened to thee. For, these things are not seen nor under-
“ stood by all, but only by him, to whom God and his Christ
“ grant the knowledge of them.’”’! “ And [adds Justin] having
“ considered with myself his words, I found that this is the
“only safe and profitable philosophy; and thus, in truth,
“ through these things, I became a philosopher. And I could
“wish that all, having brought themselves to the same state of
“ mind, would not stand aloof from the words of the Saviour, for
“ they have a certain majesty in themselves, and are sufficient to
“ alarm those who turn from the right way ; and give most sweet
“« peace to those who are conversant with them.” *
It appears that Justin was more particularly directed by his
instructor to the writings of the prophets, in order, no doubt,
to afford him the evidence which the fulfilment of those pro-
phecies gives to the truth of Christianity ; and that in them he
clearly’ perceived the doctrine of Christ ; and this doctrine he
afterwards exhibits to Trypho and his companions, by extracts
from their writings. The excellence of the doctrine of the
sacred writers, and the evidence afforded to it by the fulfilment
1 Ἐγένοντό τινες πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου πάντων τούτων τῶν νομιζομένων φιλοσόφων
παλαιότεροι, μακάριοι, καὶ δίκαιοι, καὶ θεοφιλεῖς, θείῳ πνεύματι λαλήσαντες, καὶ τὰ
μέλλοντα θεσπίσαντες, ἃ δὴ νῦν γίνεται" προφήτας δὲ αὐτοὺς καλοῦσιν" οὗτοι μόνοι
τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἐξεῖπον ἀνθρώποις, μήτ᾽ εὐλαβηθέντες μήτε δυσωπηθέντες
τινὰ, μὴ ἡττημένοι δόξης, ἀλλὰ μόνα ταῦτα εἰπόντες & ἤκουσαν καὶ ἃ εἶδον, ἁγίῳ
πληρωθέντες πνεύματι: συγγράμματα δὲ αὐτῶν ἔτι καὶ νῦν διαμένει, καὶ ἔστιν ἐντυ-
χόντα τούτοις πλεῖστον ὠφεληθῆναι καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν, καὶ περὶ τέλους, καὶ ὧν χρὴ
εἰδέναι τὸν φιλόσοφον, πιστεύσαντα ἐκείνοις. Οὐ γὰρ μετὰ ἀποδείξεως πεποίηνται
τότε τοὺς λόγους, ἅτε ἀνωτέρω πάσης amodeltews ὄντες ἀξιόπιστοι μάρτυρες τῆς
ἀληθείας" τὰ δὲ ἀποβάντα καὶ ἀποβαίνοντα ἐξαναγκάζει συντίθεσθαι τοῖς λελαλημέ-
γοις δι᾽ αὐτῶν" καὶ τοί γε καὶ διὰ τὰς δυνάμεις ἃς ἐπέτελουν, πιστεύεσθαι δίκαιοι
ἦσαν" ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα ἐδόξαζον, καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
Χριστὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ κατήγγελλον" ὅπερ οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ πλάνου καὶ ἀκαθάρτου πνεύ-
ματος ἐμπιπλάμενοι ψευδοπροφῆται οὔτε ἐποίησαν, οὔτε ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις
τινὰς ἐνεργεῖν εἰς κατάπληξιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τολμῶσι, καὶ τὰ τῆς πλάνης πνεύ-
ματα καὶ δαιμόνια δοξολογοῦσιν. ἙΕὔχου δὲ σοι πρὸ πάντων φωτὸς ἄνοιχθῆναι
πύλας" οὐ γὰρ συνοπτὰ οὐδὲ συννοητὰ πᾶσίν ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ τῳ Θεὸς δῷ συνϊέναι καὶ
6 Χριστὸς αὐτοῦ. Just. Marr. Dial. cum Tryph. ὃ 7. Op. ed. Ben. p. 109.
(ed. Col. pp. 224, 5.)
2 Διαλογιζόμενός τε πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ, ταύτην μόνην εὕρισκον
φιλοσοφίαν ἀσφαλῇ τε καὶ σύμφορον, οὕτως δὴ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα φιλόσοφος ἐγώ.
Βουλοίμην δ᾽ ἂν καὶ πάντας ἴσον ἐμοὶ θυμὸν ποιησαμένους, μὴ ἀφίστασθαι τῶν τοῦ
Σωτῆρος λόγων, δέος γάρ τι ἔχουσιν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἱκανοὶ δυσωπῆσαι τοὺς ἐκτρε-
πομένους τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ, ἀνάπαυσίς τε ἡδίστη γίνεται τοῖς ἐκμελετῶσιν αὐτούς.
In. ib. § 8. p. 109. (ed. Col. p. 225.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 295
of their predictions and their miracles, convinced him, when a
heathen, of the divine origin of the revelations, both of the Old
and New Testaments; and by showing Trypho and his com-
panions the true meaning of the prophetical writings, and the
doctrine of Christ, as contained in them, he hoped to bring them
to the belief of the New.
And further on, in reply to an objection of Trypho, that he
had suffered himself to be misled, he says, “I will show, if you
“ will stay with me, that we have not believed empty fables, nor
“ words incapable of demonstration, but such as are full of a
“ divine spirit, and overflowing with power, and flourishing with
“ grace.’ Here, then, he distinctly makes the internal excel-
lence of the doctrine of the New Testament, the ground for our
belief that it is a divine doctrine, and that, consequently, they
who first delivered it, were divinely inspired.
Again, in his “ Exhortation to the Greeks,” he adopts the
same line of argument. For, having shown them, on various
grounds, how little their philosophers were to be trusted, and
particularly from their all differmg one from another, he points
out to them the harmony which there is in the writings of our
teachers, who, he says, “ having received the truth from God,
“taught it us without disputing with one another, and sepa-
*‘ rating into parties. For it was not possible for men to know
* such great and divine things by nature, or human meditation, but
“ by a gift, which came down at that time from above upon holy
men.” *
And further on, tracing the doctrines of the Christian faith,
as in his Dialogue with Trypho, in the writings of the Old Tes-
tament, he says,—‘ But if any one of those accustomed hastily
“ to oppose us, should affirm, that these books belong not to us,
“ but to the Jews, because they are still preserved in their syna-
“ gogues, and should say, that we assert in vain that we have
1 Παρεστῶτι γὰρ δείξω, ὅτι οὐ κενοῖς ἐπιστεύσαμεν μύθοις, οὐδὲ ἀναποδείκτοις
λόγοις, ἀλλὰ μεστοῖς Πνεύματος θείου καὶ δυνάμει βρύουσι, καὶ τεθηλόσι χάριτι.
Ip. ib. § 9. p. 110. (ed. Col. p. 226.)
2 ᾿Αφιλονείκως καὶ ἀστασιάστως Thy παρὰ Θεοῦ δεξαμένους γνῶσιν, καὶ ταύτην
διδάσκοντας ἡμᾶς" οὔτε γὰρ φύσει, οὔτε ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ οὕτω μεγάλα καὶ θεῖα
γινώσκειν ἀνθρώποις δυνατὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνωθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηνικαῦτα
κατελθούσῃ δωρεᾷ. Ip. Ad Grec. Cohort. ὃ 8. pp. 12, 19, (ed. Col. p. 9.)
2956 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“learnt our religion from them, let him know from the things
written in those books, that the doctrine derived from them
concerns not them, but us. And that the books which relate
to our religion are yet preserved among the Jews, is the work
of a divine providence in our behalf. For, that we may not,
by producing them from the Church, afford a pretext to those
who are desirous of bearing witness against us, for accusing
us of fraud, we think it best to produce them from the syna-
gogue of the Jews, that it may appear, from the very books
yet preserved among them, that the precepts relating to doc-
“ trine, written by those holy men, clearly and manifestly belong
“to us.”! So that, as it respects the Old Testament, he pre-
fers the testimony of the Jews to that of the Christian Church,
a testimony which we have to this day ; and from the Old Testa-
ment we may, as it appeared to him, derive sufficient testimony
for the divine origin of the doctrines of the New.
In both his Apologies, moreover, he follows the same course ;
placing his proof of the divine origin of the doctrines he was
defending, either upon the internal testimony derived from their
itrinsic excellence,” or upon such proofs as the fulfilment of
the prophecies, both of the Old and New Testament. ὃ
And lastly, in his Oration to the Greeks, having apostrophised
“the divine word” as “the putter to flight of evil passions, the
doctrine that extinguishes the fire of the soul, &c.”* he adds,
“Come and be instructed; be as I am, for I was as ye are.
1 El δέ τις φάσκοι τῶν προχείρως ἀντιλέγειν εἰθισμένων, μὴ ἡμῖν Tas βίβλους
ταύτας, ἀλλὰ Ιουδαίοις προσήκειν, διὰ τὸ ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν
σώζεσθαι, καὶ μάτην ἡμᾶς ἐκ τούτων φάσκειν τὴν θεοσέβειαν μεμαθηκέναι λέγοι,
γνώτω ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐν ταῖς βίβλοις γεγραμμένων, ὅτι οὐκ αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ ἡμῖν ἣ
ἐκ τούτων διαφέρει διδασκαλία τὸ δὲ παρὰ Ιουδαίοις ἔτι καὶ νῦν τὰς τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ
θεοσεβείᾳ διαφερούσας σώζεσθαι βίβλους, θείας προνοίας ἔργον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γέγονεν"
ἵνα γὰρ μὴ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας προκομίζοντες, πρόφασιν ῥᾳδιουργίας τοῖς βουλομένοις
βλασφημεῖν ἡμᾶς παράσχωμεν, and τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων συναγωγῆς ταύτας ἀξιοῦμεν
προκομίζεσθαι, ἵνα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔτι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς σωζομένων βιβλίων, ὡς ἡμῖν τὰ
πρὺς διδασκαλίαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν γραφέντα δίκαια σαφῶς καὶ φανερῶς προσ-
ἥκει, φανῇ. Ip. ib. § 18. p, 17. (ed. Col. p. 14.)
2 See Apol. 1. §§ 14—17. pp. 51—54. (ed. Col. Apol. 2. pp. 61—64.)
3 See Apol. 1. ὃ 12. p. 50. and §§ 30—83. pp. 61—64. (ed. col. Apol. 2. p. 60
and pp. 72—74.)
4 ὋὉ θεῖος Adyos...... ὦ παθῶν δεινῶν φυγαδευτήριον, ὦ πυρὸς ἐμψύχου σβεσ-
τικὸν διδασκάλιον, κ΄ τ. A. Id. Orat, ad Greec. § ult. pp. 4, 5.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 297
“ These things persuaded me, namely, the divinity of the doctrine,
“and the power of the word.” Ὁ
From these statements, therefore, it is evident, that the ground
upon which Justin Martyr’s faith rested, that the Bible was the
word of God, was the internal testimony it contains to its
having emanated from a Divine source.
Nor let it be supposed, that his mode of reasoning was suitable
only to the Jews or heathen, whom he was addressing. For, as
it respects this point, viz., the question whether the Bible is the
word of God, all men are similarly cireumstanced. If there are
any serious doubts on this point, such doubts cannot be removed
by any human authority. He who has such doubts, is for the
moment, as far as that point is concerned, precisely in the same
situation with any other unbeliever. Human testimony may be
available, as giving evidence more or less credible to facts con-
nected with the authorship and preservation of the books of
Scripture ; but even here, so far from depending upon the tes-
timony of the Church alone, we have several other sources of
information, and those less open to suspicion.
We have no reason to suppose, then, that Justin Martyr would
have adopted any other mode of reasoning, had he been address-
ing the professing Christian Church on this subject ; for, the
ground or evidence upon which the faith of men in Scripture,
as the word of God, rests, must be the same with all.
At any rate that which is a sufficient proof of the Scripture
being the word of God to the Jews and heathen, must be a
sufficient proof to all others; so that we have no need to receive
the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture upon the testimony
of Tradition.
TuEopuitus or Antiocu. (fl. a. 168.)
I proceed to Theophilus of Antioch, who says to Autolycus,
“Ἐς not, therefore, incredulous, but believe. For I also did not
“ believe that this should be; but now having considered these
“ things, I believe ; having fallen in with the sacred writings of
1 Ἔλθετε, παιδεύθητε' γένεσθε ws eye ὅτι κἀγὼ ἤμην ὡς ὑμεῖς. Ταῦτα ue εἷλε,
τό τε τῆς παιδείας ἔνθεον, καὶ τὸ τοῦ λόγου δυνατόν. ID. ib. p. 5.
298 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ the holy Prophets, who also foretold, by the divine Spirit, the
“ things which have happened, according to the manner in which
“ they happened; and the things that are now taking place, as
“ they are taking place; and the things that are to come, in what
“ way they will be fulfilled. Therefore, having received a proof
“ from those things happening which were foretold, I am not in-
“* eredulous, but, in obedience to God, believe.’ +
Tatran. (fl. a. 172.)
Proceeding to Tatian, let us observe in the following pas-
sage the grounds upon which Ais faith in the Scriptures rested.
Having become dissatisfied, he tells us, with the heathen mytho-
logy, “I sought to know in what way I could find the truth.
“ And while I was considering the things worthy of attention,
“it happened that I read certain foreign writings, more antient
“than the writings of the Greeks as it regards the doctrine of
“the Greeks, and more divine as it regards their errors. And
“it turned out, that I was brought to believe them,. both on
“ account of the simplicity of the style, and the freedom from
artifice in the authors, and the plain account given of the crea-
tion of the universe, and their foreknowledge of things to come,
and the magnitude of their promises, and the majesty of all
“‘ which they have written. And my soul having thus become
“ taught by God, I understood,” &c.?
1 Μὴ οὖν ἀπίστει, ἀλλὰ πίστευε. Kal γὰρ ἐγὼ ἠπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ
νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅμα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς τῶν ἁγίων προ-
φητῶν, ot καὶ προεῖπον διὰ πνεύματος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα, ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονε, καὶ
τὰ ἐνεστῶτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται"
ἀπόδειξιν οὖν λαβὼν τῶν γινομένων καὶ προαναπεφωνημένων, οὐκ ἀπιστῶ" ἀλλὰ
πιστεύω πειθαρχῶν Θεῷες THEOPH. ANT. Ad Autol. lib. i. § ult. Ad fin. Op. Just.
Marv. ed. Ben. p. 346. (ed. Colon. 1686. p. 78.)
2 Ἐῤήτουν, ὅτῳ τρόπῳ τἀληθὲς ἐξευρεῖν δύναμαι. Περινοοῦντι δέ μοι τὰ σπου-
δαῖα, συνέβη γραφαῖς τισὶν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, πρεσβυτέραις μὲν, ὧς πρὸς τὰ
Ἑλλήνων δόγματα, θειοτέραις δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων πλάνην" καί μοι πεισ-
θῆναι ταὐταῖς συνέβη διά τε τῶν λέξεων τὸ ἄτυφον, καὶ τῶν εἰπόντων τὸ ἀνεπιτή-
δευτον, καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ποίησεως τὸ εὐκατάληπτον, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ προ-
γνωστικὸν, καὶ τῶν παραγγελμάτων τὸ ἐξαίσιον, καὶ τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν.
Θεοδιδάκτου δέ μου γενομένης τῆς ψυχῆς, συνῆκα, ὅτι, κι τ. A. Tarrant Contra
Gree. orat. § 29. Ad fin. Op. Just. Mart. ed. Ben. pp. 267, 8. (ed. Colon.
1686. p. 165.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 299
The faith of Tatian, therefore, was grounded upon the inter-
nal evidence which Scripture itself contains to its divine origin.
TERTULLIAN. (fl. a. 192.)
To the same effect speaks Tertullian. ‘ We prove,” he says,
“the Scriptures to be divine, if there is any doubt as to their
“ antiquity.” And how does he proceed to do this ? From their
own testimony. ‘ Neither,” he adds, “is this to be learnt with
“ difficulty, or from any eaternal teacher. The things that will
“ teach us this truth are before our eyes. 'The world, the age,
“ events. Whatever is done was foretold. Whatever is seen,
“‘ was there heard. That the earth swallows up cities, that the
“sea causes islands to disappear, &c. [adding various other
“ events] all these are written beforehand. While we suffer
** these things, they are being read to us; while we recognize
“these events, their truth is proved. The correctness of the
“ prophecy is, I think, a sufficient proof of its divine origin.
“ Hence, therefore, our belief of things future is safe, as of
“ things already proved,inasmuch as they were foretold with those
“ things the truth of which is daily proved. The same words
“ sound in our ears, the same writings make them known, the
“same Spirit moves in them...... How offend we, I pray you,
‘“‘ when we believe also the future, who have already by two
“ successive proofs learnt to believe them ?” 4
1 «Divinas [i. e. “Scripturas’”] probamus, si dubitatur antiquas. Nec hoc
tardius aut aliunde discendum. Coram sunt que docebunt; mundus et seculum
et exitus. Quicquid agitur, prenunciabatur. Quicquid videtur, audiebatur.
Quod terre vorant urbes, quod insulas maria fraudant, quod externa atque interna
bella dilaniant, quod regnis regna compulsant, quod fames et lues et locales quaeque
clades et frequentiz pleraque montium vastant, quod humiles sublimitate, sublimes
humilitate mutantur, quod justitia rarescit et iniquitas increbescit, bonarum omnium
disciplinarum cura torpescit, quod etiam officia temporum et elementorum munia
exorbitant, quod et monstris et portentis naturalium forma turbatur, providenter
scripta sunt. Dum patimur, leguntur ; dum recognoscimns, probantur. Idoneum,
opinor, testimonium divinitatis veritas divinationis. Hine igitur apud nos futur-
orum quoque fides tuta est, jam scilicet probatorum ; quia cum illis, que quotidie
probantur, predicebantur. Hadem voces sonant, esdem literze notant, idem
spiritus pulsat. Unum tempus est divinationi, futura prefandi. Apud homines,
si forte, distinguitur dum expungitur: dum ex futuro presens, dehine ex pre-
senti preteritum deputatur. Quid delinquimus, oro vos, futura quoque credentes,
qui jam didicimus illis per duos gradus credere?” TxERTULL. Apologet. c. 20,
Op. ed. 1664. p. 18.
3800 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Such, then, is the character of the arguments to which
Tertullian would have recourse in proving the divine origin of
the Scriptures.
CLEMENT or ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 192.)
Our next witness shall be Clement of Alexandria, who not
only does not offer anything to support the views of our oppo-
nents, though his subject would inevitably have led him to do
so in several places, had he entertained them, but everywhere
proposes, as the grounds of our faith in Scripture as the word
of God, either the internal testimony afforded by the excellence
of its doctrines and precepts, or the external testimony afforded
by the fulfilment of prophecy, and the miracles of Christ and
his followers, and the wonderful success of the Christian religion
in the face of all opposition.
Thus, in his Admonition to the Gentiles, the whole of his
argument is directed to the proof of the excellence of that reli-
gion laid down in the Scriptures, that the Holy Scriptures
(according to a passage already quoted) are truly holy, for they
make men holy, and even divine. We want, then, nothing
more, if this argument is good ; for that which proves the reli-
gion revealed in the Scriptures to be divine, proves all which
we want a proof of. Are our opponents ready to give up this
argument as not sufficiently forcible? If so, they are ready to
yield the best bulwark of Christianity, and they will find that
ecclesiastical testimony which they would substitute in its place
but a broken reed. The testimony of the Church, indeed, is
one which, if it be not obtruded upon men as haying a degree
of authority to which it has no claim, will always be received
with respect, and be allowed its due weight in the decision of so
important a question ; but it is a testimony which, from its very
nature, can only occupy a secondary place.
So, also, in his Stromata, we find not the least reference to
the testimony of the Church respecting the Scriptures, as proving
their divine origin, but only appeals either to the internal testi-
mony borne by their excellence to their own character, or to the
external testimonies we have mentioned to the divinity of their
doctrine. Thus, he says,—‘ Inquiry is an endeavour to ascer-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 301
“ tain something, by finding out, through certain signs, the sub-
“ject of inquiry; but discovery is the end and cessation of
“ inquiry, when it has arrived at comprehension, which is know-
“ledge.... And they say that a sign is that which goes before,
“ or that which attends, or that which follows. Of the inquiry,
“therefore, respecting God, the discovery is, the doctrine
“ delivered by the Son. But for a sign that that very Son of
“ God is our Saviour, we have the prophecies that preceded his
“ advent proclaiming him, and the testimonies concerning him
“ that accompanied his birth among men, and also his mighty
“works preached and clearly manifested after his ascension.
« The evidence, therefore, that the truth is with us, is that the
“ Son of God taught it. For if in every question these general
“ principles are ascertained, the person and the thing, that
“ which is really the truth is shown to be with us alone ; since
“ of the truth so manifested the person manifesting is the Son of
“ God, but the thing manifested is the power of the faith, which
“ yises superior to every one, whosoever he may be, that opposes
“ it, nay even the whole world itself arrayed against it.” !
And alluding again, further on, to these testimonies, as the
evidences that the Christian faith came from God, he adds,—
“ The word of our Master hath not remained in Judea only, as
“ philosophy in Greece, but has been diffused through the whole
“ world....and as to the Grecian philosophy, ifany magistrate
“ opposed it, it immediately perished ; but as to our doctrine,
“ from the very period of its first promulgation it has been
“ opposed by kings and emperors, and magistrates and generals,
1 Ἔστιν δὲ 7 μὲν ζήτησις, ὁρμὴ ἐπὶ τὸ καταλαβεῖν διά τινων σημείων ἀνευρίσ-
κουσα τὸ ὑποκείμενον" ἢ εὕρεσις δὲ, πέρας καὶ ἀνάπαυσις ζητήσεως ἐν καταλήψει
γενομένης" ὅπερ ἐστιν ἢ γνῶσις"... .... σημεῖον δ᾽ εἶναι φασὶ τὸ προηγούμενον, ἢ
συνυπάρχον, ἢ ἑπόμενον" τῆς τοίνυν περὶ Θεοῦ ζητήσεως εὕρεσις μὲν, ἡ διὰ τοῦ
υἱοῦ διδασκαλία: σημεῖον δὲ τοῦ εἶναι τὸν Σωτῆρα ἡμῶν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ, αἵ τε προηγούμεναι τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ προφητεῖαι, τοῦτον κηρύσσουσαι"
αἵ τε συνυπάρξασαι τῇ γενήσει αὐτοῦ τῇ αἰσθητῇ περὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίαι" πρὸς δὲ
καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν κηρυσσόμεναί τε καὶ ἐμφανῶς δεικνύμεναι δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ"
τεκμήοιον ἄρα τοῦ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εἶναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, τὸ αὐτὸν διδάξαι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ:
εἰ γὰρ περὶ πᾶν ζήτημα καθολικὰ ταῦτα εὑρίσκεται, πρόσωπόν τε καὶ πρᾶγμα, ἣ
ὄντως ἀλήθεια παρ᾽ ἡμῖν δείκνυται μόνοις" ἐπεὶ πρόσωπον μὲν τῆς δεικνυμένης ἀλη-
θείας, ὅ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ" τὸ πρᾶγμα δὲ, 7 δύναμις τῆς πίστεως, 7 καὶ παντὸς οὗτινος
οὖν ἐναντιουμένου, καὶ αὐτοῦ ὅλου ἐνισταμένου τοῦ κόσμου πλεονάζουσα. CLEM.
ALEX. Strom. lib. vi. § 15. Op. ed. Potter. tom. ii. p. 801 (or, 674.)
302 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ with all their mercenaries, and innumerable other men, who
“ have made war against us, and done all they could to cut us
“ off; but it flourishes the more; for it perishes not, like a
“ human doctrine, it languishes not, like a powerless gift, for no
“ oift of God is powerless, but remains unimpeded, though
“ under the prediction that it shall be persecuted unto the
ends Ὁ
These, and such only as these, are the considerations which
are used by Clement as the grounds for faith in the revelations
of Scripture as the word of God. He does not even allude to
the testimony of the Church, but places the whole burthen of
proof upon evidence altogether distinct from and independent
of that testimony; for the miracles and wonderful propagation
of Christianity to which he alludes may be abundantly proved
from other sources.
OricEn. (fl. a. 230.)
Let us proceed to Origen, who, in the beginning of his fourth
book “ On first principles,” expressly treats on the grounds we
have for believing the Scriptures to be divine; and throughout
the whole of his remarks never once alludes to the testimony of
the Church, as forming even one of those grounds.
He first points out, how different had been the reception
given by the world to the two great lawgivers of the Jews and
Christians, Moses and Jesus Christ, from that which heathen
philosophers had experienced, none of the latter having induced
even one whole nation to live according to their precepts.” He
1 Ὁ δέ ye Tod διδασκάλου τοῦ ἡμετέρου λόγος, οὐκ ἔμεινεν ἐν Ιουδαίᾳ μόνῃ,
καθάπερ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἣ φιλοσοφία" ἐχύθη δὲ ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην... .. «.
καὶ τὴν μὲν φιλοσοφίαν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἐὰν ὃ τυχὼν ἄρχων κωλύσῃ, οἴχεται πα-
ραχρῆμα: τὴν δὴ [δὲ] ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἔκ τοτε οὺν καὶ τῇ πρώτῃ καταγγελίᾳ
κωλύουσιν ὁμοῦ βασιλεῖς, καὶ τύραννοι, καὶ οἱ κατὰ μέρος ἄρχοντες, καὶ ἡγεμόνες
μετὰ τῶν μισθοφόρων ἁπάντων, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπείρων ἀνθρώπων, καταστρα-
τευόμενοί τε ἡμῶν, καὶ bon δύναμις ἐκκόπτειν πειρώμενοι" ἣ δὲ, καὶ μᾶλλον ἀνθεῖ" οὐ
γὰρ ὡς ἀνθρωπίνη ἀποθνήσκει διδασκαλία, οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἀσθενὴς μαραίνεται δωρεά.
οὐδεμία γὰρ ἀσθενὴς δωρεὰ Θεοῦ" μένει δὲ ἀκώλυτος, διωχθήσεσθαι εἰς τέλος προ-
φητευθεῖσα. ΤΡ. Strom. lib. vi. § ult. tom. ii. p. 827. (or, 697, 8.)
? OriGEN. De princip. lib. iv. ὃ 1. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. pp. 156, 7.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 303
then proceeds to remark, that the success of Christianity in so
short a time, and propagated by so few persons amidst the
greatest opposition, was what he could not hesitate to calla
work beyond the power of man.’ And this was predicted by
Christ ; and thus the fulfilment of his predictions shows, that
God truly incarnate had delivered to men the doctrines of sal-
vation.” He then adverts to the prophecies of the Old Testa-
ment, and their fulfilment in Christ, as a further evidence.®
The next point he mentions is the journeying of the Apostles
into the whole world, as a superhuman undertaking, the conse-
quence of a divine command; and that the way in which their
new doctrine was listened to, and those who plotted against
them were overcome by a divine power watching over them,
might well make us believe, that they worked miracles, and that
God bare them witness by signs and wonders ;* where we may
observe, how he places our belief in the fact of their having
worked miracles, not upon mere human testimony, but upon the
deductions of sense and reason from what was obvious. To which
we may add, he remarks, that the advent of Christ threw a light
upon the prophecies, which proved them to be from God.°
“Nay,” he says, “he who carefully and attentively reads the
“ prophecies, feeling from the very perusal of them the footsteps
“ of inspiration, will, by the effect produced upon him, be con-
“ vinced, that what are esteemed to be the words of God are
“not the writings of men.”® And, lastly, he points to the
1 Μεῖζον ἢ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον τὸ πρᾶγμα εἶναι λέγειν ov διστάζομεν. Ib. ib. ὃ 2.
1. 157.
2 Ὅτε δὲ ἐκβέβηκε τὰ μετὰ τοσαύτης ἐξουσίας εἰρημένα, ἐμφαίνει θεὸν ἀληθῶς
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα σωτήρια δόγματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις παραδεδωκέναι. ID. ib. i. 158.
3 Ip. ib. §§ 3—5. i. 158—161.
4 ᾿ΕἘπιστησάτω δέ τις Kal τῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων πανταχόσε ἐπιδημίᾳ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ καταγγεῖλαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πεμφθέντων, καὶ ὄψεται καὶ τὸ τόλμημα
οὐ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τὸ ἐπίταγμα θεῖον. Καὶ ἐὰν ἐξετάσωμεν πῶς ἄνθρωποι
καινῶν μαθημάτων ἀκούοντες καὶ ξένων λόγων προσήκαντο τοὺς ἄνδρας, νικηθέντες
ἐν τῷ θέλειν αὐτοῖς ἐπιβουλεύειν ὑπό τινος θείας δυνάμεως ἐπισκοπούσης αὐτοὺς, οὐκ
ἀπιστήσομεν εἰ καὶ τεράστια πεποιήκασιν, ἐπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς λόγοις
αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ σημείων, καὶ τεράτων, καὶ ποικίλων δυνάμεων. ΤΡ. ib. ὃ 5.
IiGt;
5. Ἢ Ἰησοῦ emidnuia...... εἰς τοὐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν, ὡς οὐρανίῳ χάριτι ἀναγε-
γραμμένα. In. ib. § 6. i. 161, 2.
5 Ὁ δὲ μετ᾽ ἐπιμελείας καὶ προσοχῆς ἐντυγχάνων τοῖς προφητικοῖς λόγοις,
304 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
effects of Scripture-teaching on the minds of men, notwith-
standing its simplicity, as another evidence of its divine origin."
And there he quits the subject, proceeding to say, that having
thus briefly spoken to the question that the divine Scriptures are
divinely inspired, it was necessary for him to pass on to the
method of reading and understanding them.’
And in the same way he refers, in his controversy with
Celsus, to the fulfilment of the prophecies, as the ground upon
which they were considered to be divinely inspired; and that,
therefore, Christians did not believe, without having a reasonable
foundation for their belief, as Celsus had objected to them.*
Lactantivs. (fl. a. 303.)
“Those who are ignorant of the truth,’ says Lactantius,
“ think that the prophets are not to be believed. For they say,
« that their words are not divine, but human.” How, then, does
he meet this, and in what way does he endeavour to lead these
objectors to a recognition of the divine inspiration of Scripture ?
His words are these ;—“ But we daily see their prophecies ful-
“ filled, and in the course of fulfilment ; and the agreement in
‘‘ their prophecies shows that they were not mad...... Were
“ they, then, deceitful who uttered such things? What can be
“ so completely alien to them as a design to deceive, when they
“restrain others from every kind of fraud? ..... Moreover,
“ the desire to fabricate and lie belongs to those who seek wealth,
“who desire gain; which was far from being the case with
“those holy men. . . . . . Therefore, where the desire of gain
παθὼν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναγινώσκειν ἴχνος ἐνθουσιασμοῦ, δι᾽ ὧν πάσχει, πεισθήσεται,
οὐκ ἀνθρώπων εἶναι συγγράμματα τοὺς πεπιστευμένους Θεοῦ λόγους. Ib. ib.
§ 6.1. 162.
1 Ei γὰρ αἱ καθημαξευμέναι τῶν ἀποδείξεων ὁδοὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐναπο-
κείμεναι τοῖς βιβλίοις κατίσχυσαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἣ πίστις ἡμῶν εὐλόγως ἂν
ὑπελαμβάνετο ἐν σοφίᾳ ἀνθρώπων, καὶ οὐκ ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ. Νῦν δὲ τῷ ἐπάραντι
τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς, σαφὲς ὅτι 6 λόγος καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς οὐ δεδύνηται
ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις, ἄλλ᾽ ἐν ἀποδείξει Πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως. Ib. ib.
§ 7. i. 163.
2 Μετὰ τὸ ὡς ἐν ἐπιδρομῇ εἰρηκέναι περὶ τοῦ θεοπνεύστους εἶναι τὰς θείας ypa-
φὰς, ἀναγκαῖον ἐπεξελθεῖν τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως καὶ νοήσεως αὐτῶν. ID. ib.
§ 8. 1. 164.
3 Tp. Contra Cels. lib. vi. § 10. i. 636, 7.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 305
“ was absent, there also the will and the reason for deception
“ was absent.” !
Such are the grounds upon which Lactantius places the proof
of the divine inspiration of Scripture.
Eusesius or Casarka. (fl. a. 315.)
Let us proceed to Eusebius of Czsarea, in whose works entitled,
“* The Evangelical Preparation,” and “‘ The Evangelical Demon-
stration,” the reader will find this matter fully discussed, but to
which our present limits will only admit of this general reference.
Moreover, as it respects the authority or grounds upon which
we draw the line between the Apostolical books and those falsely
pretending to an Apostolical origin, Eusebius refers us not
exclusively to the testimony of ecclesiastical writers, but to the
internal evidence. After having stated, that they are not quoted
by ecclesiastical writers, he adds, ‘ Moreover, the phraseology
“ differs from that used by the Apostles. And the sentiments, as
* well as the purport of those things which are delivered in them,
“ differing very widely from the true orthodox faith, clearly show,
“ that they are the productions of heretics.” *
And further on, speaking of some books professing to contain
the dialogues of Peter and Appion, he says, “ Of which there is
“no mention made by the antients ; for they do not preserve the
“ pure mark of Apostolical orthodoxy.” *
1“ At enim veritatis expertes non putant his [i. 6. prophetis] esse creden-
dum. Tllas enim non divinas sed humanas voces fuisse aiunt...... Atqui
{at quin Par. ed.] impleta esse in plerisque [implerique Par. ed.] quotidie illorum
vaticinia videmus; et in unam sententiam congruens divinatio docet non fuisse
furiosos.... Num ergo fallaces erant, qui talia loquebantur ? quid ab his tam
longe alienum quam ratio fallendi, cum cxteros ab omni fraude cohiberent? ....
Preterea voluntas fingendi ac mentiendi eorum est qui opes appetunt, qui lucra
desiderant ; que res procul ab illis sanctis viris abfuit...... Ergo a quibus abfuit
studium lucri, abfuit etiam voluntas et causa fallendi,” ἄς. Lacranr. Instit.
Lib. 1. 6. 4. Op. ed. Cant. 1685."p. 9. or, ed. Par. 1748. vol. i. p. 13.
2 Πόῤῥω δέ που καὶ ὅ τῆς φράσεως παρὰ τὸ ἦθος τὸ ἀποστολικὸν ἐναλλάττει
χαρακτήρ' ἥ τε γνώμη καὶ ἣ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς φερομένων προαίρεσις, πλεῖστον ὅσον
τῆς ἀληθοῦς ὀρθοδοξίας ἀπάδουσα, ὅτι δὴ αἱρετικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀναπλάσματα τυγχά-
vet, σαφῶς παρίστησιν. EvsEs. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 25. Inter Hist. Eccles,
Gree. ed. Reading. vol. i. p. 120. ;
37Qy οὐδ᾽ ὅλως μνήμη τις παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς φέρεται" οὐδὲ γὰρ καθαρὸν τῆς
ἀποστολικῆς ὀρθοδοξίας ἀποσώζει τὸν χαρακτῆρα. ΤΡ. ib. c. 38. ed. ead. vol. i.
p- 135.
VOL. 111. x
306 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Hivary or Porcrtisrs. (fl. a. 354.)
Hilary of Poictiers, giving an account of the way in which he
himself had been induced to accept Scripture as a divine revela-
tion, thus writes ;—“ Therefore, while 1 was turning over in my
“ mind these things, and many others of the same kind, J fell in
“‘ with those books which the religion of the Hebrews declared
“ to be written by Moses and by the prophets, i which, God
“ himself, the Creator, testifying of himself, these things were
“ thus contained, ‘ Iam that Iam ;’ and again, ‘ Thus shalt thou
“ say unto the children of Israel, He that is, sent me unto you.’
“1 was at once struck with admiration at so perfect a description
“ of God, which declared the incomprehensible knowledge of the
“ divine nature in words most suitable to the human under-
“ standing. .... My mind, held by the desire of the truth, was
‘ delighted with these most pious notions respecting God... ..
Therefore, my mind, full of these researches after the views
and doctrines of piety, rested as it were in a place of retirement,
“ viewing afar off this most beautiful theory... .. But my mind
was agitated, partly by its own fear, partly by that of the body.
Which, when it firmly retained its views in a pious confession
respecting God, and had become anxious and careful respect-
ing itself and this its abode, about, as it supposed, to fall with
itself, after becoming acquainted with the law and the prophets,
it arrives at the knowledge also of that Evangelical and Apo-
stolical doctrine, ‘ In the beginning was the Word, &c.’.....
[and quoting other passages of Scripture, he adds] . . . . Here,
now, my fearful and anxious mind found more hope than it
expected. .... Therefore my mind embraced joyfully this
“ doctrine of the divine mystery..... In this ease and con-
“ sciousness of its security my mind, full of joyful hopes, had
“ found rest,” &c. !
ce
1 “Hee igitur, multaque alia ejusmodi cum animo reputans incidi in eos libros
quos a Mose atque a prophetis scriptos esse Hebrorum religio tradebat; in
quibus, ipso creatore Deo testante de se, heec ita continebantur, ‘ Ego sum qui sum ἢ
et rursum, ‘ Hee dices filiis Israel, misit me ad vos Is qui est.’ Admiratus sum
plane tam absolutam de Deo significationem, que nature divine incomprehen-
sibilem cognitionem aptissimo ad intelligentiam humanam sermone loqueretur. . ..
His religiosissimis de Deo opinionibus veri studio detentus animus delectabatur
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 307
To nothing, we see, does Hilary refer as having induced him
to accept the doctrine of Scripture as divine, but the power of
the internal evidence.
AvucustTINE. (fl. a. 396.)
Our next witness is Augustine, who in his “ Confessions”’ thus
states the motives that in his own case led to a recognition of
the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
“ Thou, O Lord,” he says, “ with thy most mild and merciful
“hand, by degrees settling and composing my mind, when I
“ considered how many things I believed which I did not see,
and was not present when they were done .... didst persuade
“ me, that not those who believed thy books, which thou hast
“ supported by such a weight of authority in almost all nations,
“ were to be blamed, but those who did not believe them ;
“ and that those were not to be listened to who might say to me,
“ Whence do you know that those books were supplied to mankind
“ by the Spirit of the true and most faithful God?..... Since
“ we [mortals] were weak for the discovery of the truth by
“ evident reason, and on this account there was need of the
“ authority of the holy Scriptures, I had already begun to be
“ convinced, that thou wouldst not at all have given so pre-
“eminent an authority to that Scripture through all lands,
“ unless it had been thy will, that through it thou shouldst
“be believed in, ‘and through it thou shouldst be sought.
“ For now, having heard many things in them shown to have
“the appearance of truth, I referred the [seeming] absur-
“ dity which used to offend me in those writings to the sub-
“limity of the mysteries [of which they spoke]; and that
...- His itaque pie opinionis atque doctrine studiis animus imbutus, in secessu
quodam ac specula pulcherrime hujus sententie requiescebat.... Fatigabatur
autem animus partim suo partim corporis metu. Qui cum et constantem senten-
tiam suam pia de Deo professione retineret, et sollicitam de se atque hoc occasuro
secum, ut putabat, habitaculo suo curam recepisset, post cognitionem legis ac
prophetarum istiusmodi quoque doctrine evangelica atque apostolice instituta
cognoscit ; ‘In principio erat Verbum,’ &c....... Hic jam mens trepida et anxia
plus spei invenit quam exspectabat.... Hane itaque divini sacramenti doctrinam
mens lexta suscepit....In hoe ergo conscio securitatis suze otio mens spebus suis
lata requieverat,” ὅθ. Hux. Picr. De Trin. lib. 1. §§ 5—14. Op. ed. Ben. col.
768— 74.
ΧΡ:
308 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
“ authority appeared to me to be more venerable, and worthy of
“a more devoted faith, on account of its being open to the
“© perusal of all, and preserving the dignity of its mystery im a
more profound meaning, while, by its plain words and simple
style of phraseology, it offers itself to all, and exercises the
“ diligence of those who are not light minded.” ?
And a little further on in the same work he says,—“I will
“ hear and understand how in the beginning thou didst make
“ the heaven and the earth. Moses wrote this; he wrote it and
“ departed:” and adding, that had he been present he would
have asked him of the matter, he says, “ But whence should I
“know whether he spoke the truth? And if I knew this,
« should I know it from him? Truth within me... .. would
“say, He speaks the truth; and I, immediately assured, would
“ say confidently to thy messenger, Thou speakest the truth.” *
Such were the actings of Augustine’s own mind on this point,
and I need hardly add, that the testimony borne in a work of
this kind is much more forcible as an index of the real views of
Augustine than any statements in his controversial works.
Moreover, as to the grounds upon which we rest the genuine-
1 «Ty, Domine, manu mitissima et misericordissima pertractans et componens
cor meum, consideranti quam innumerabilia crederem que non viderem, neque
cum gererentur adfuissem.... persuasisti mihi, non qui crederent libris tuis, quos
tanta in omnibus fere gentibus auctoritate fundasti, sed qui non crederent, esse
culpandos; nec audiendos esse, si qui forte mihi dicerent, Unde scis illos libros
unius veri et veracissimi Dei Spiritu esse humano generi ministratos?...... Cum
essemus infirmi ad inveniendam liquida ratione véritatem, et ob hoc nobis opus
esset auctoritate sanctarum litterarum, jam credere coeperam nullo modo te fuisse
tributurum tam excellentem illi Scriptura per omnes jam terras auctoritatem, nisi
et per ipsam tibi credi, et per ipsam te queri, voluisses. Jam enim absurditatem
qu me in illis litteris solebat offendere, cum multa ex eis probabiliter exposita
audissem, ad sacramentorum altitudinem referebam: eoque mihi illa venerabilior
et sacrosancta fide dignior apparebat auctoritas, quo et omnibus ad legendum esset
in promtu, et secreti sui dignitatem in intellectu profundiore servaret, verbis
apertissimis et humillimo genere loquendi se cunctis prebens et exercens inten-
tionem eorum qui non sunt leves corde.” AvG@usTINI Confess. lib. vi. ἢ. 5. Op.
ed. Ben. tom. i. col. 122, 123.
2 « Audiam et intelligam, quomodo in principio fecisti celum et terram.
Scripsit hoc Moyses, scripsit et abiit......Sed unde scirem, an verum diceret ἢ
Quod si et hoc scirem, num ab illo scirem? Intus utique mihi, intus in domicilio
cogitationis ...... Veritas, sine oris et linguz organis, sine strepitu syllabarum
diceret, Verum dicit. Et ego statim certus confidenter illi homini tuo dicerem,
Verum dicis.” In. ib. lib. χὶ. ο. 8. i. 197.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 309
ness and incorrupt preservation of the books of Scripture, the
following passage from his work against Faustus the Manichee,
will clearly show us, what was his view of the matter. “If you
“ ask of us,” he says, “how we know that these are the writings
“ of the Apostles, we briefly answer you, that we know this just
“in the same way as you know that these are the writings of
“ Manicheus ;! proceeding to say, that, as they would laugh at
any one who should deny “a thing confirmed by such a con-
tinued line of connexion and succession,” * as the fact that their
books were written by Manichzus, so they themselves were to be
laughed at, if they questioned the genuimeness of the canonical
Apostolical writings, “an authority having such a foundation
“to rest upon, preserved and carried down by certain suc-
“ cessions from the times of the Apostles, even to the present
“time.” ὃ
And he says elsewhere (in a passage already quoted) —* The
“ integrity and a knowledge of the writings of any one bishop,
““ however illustrious, could not be so preserved, as the canonical
“ Scripture is preserved by the variety of the languages in which
“ it is found, and by the order and succession of its rehearsal in
“ the Church ; against which nevertheless there have not been
“ wanting those who have forged many things under the names
“ of the Apostles. To no purpose, indeed, because it was so in
“ esteem, so constantly read, so well known.” *
From these passages, then, it is evident, that Augustine rested
the question of the genuineness of the Scriptures not upon any
dictum of the Church conveyed down by succession from Aposto-
lical teaching, nor upon the mere testimony of the Church, but
upon grounds similar to that on which the genumeness of
other books rests, though justly considering that those grounds
were vastly more full and forcible in the former than in the
latter case.
1 « Hic jam si queratis a nobis, nos unde sciamus Apostolorum esse istas litte-
ras, breviter vobis respondemus, inde nos scire, unde et vos scitis illas litteras esse
Manichzi.” Ip. Contra Faust. lib. xxxii. ¢. 21. viii. 462.
2 « Rem tanta connexionis et successionis serie confirmatam.” Ib. ib.
5. “Tam fundate auctoritati, a temporibus Apostolorum usque ad he tempora
certis successionibus custodite atque perducte.” In. ib.
4 «Ep. ad Vincent. Rogat. ep. 93. ii. 246, 7. See above, vol. i. p. 195.
310 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Nay, he draws a distinction between the canonical books
themselves on account of the difference in the amount of the
external testimony to them. “In the canonical Scriptures,” he
says, “let him follow the authority of as many Catholic Churches
“as possible, among which let those without fail be included,
which have deserved to have Apostolical Chairs and to receive
“ Apostolical Epistles. Therefore he will observe this method
in the canonical Scriptures, that he must prefer those which
are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some do
not receive ; but in the case of those which are not received by
all, let him prefer those which the greater number and the
worthier receive, to those which the fewer Churches and those
“of less authority hold. But if he shall have found, that
some are maintained by the greater number, and others by
those of more weight, although he cannot easily find this,
I think, nevertheless, that such are to be esteemed of equal
authority.” ἢ
On the statements in this passage I offer no opinion, as that
would be irrelevant to our present subject, but one thing it
certainly proves, namely, the wide difference between the views
of Augustine on the question, and those of the Romanists and
the Tractators.
We may also remark, both from this and other passages, that
Augustine often uses the word “ authority,” not in the sense of
something absolutely and of itself binding those on whom it
acts, but rather in the sense of a testimony, having a degree of
weight proportioued to the character and power of him who
bears it.
And this leads me to notice the famous passage so frequently
objected to our views from Augustine. Writing against the
ce
[1
1 “Tn canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium aue-
toritatem sequatur, inter quas sane ille sint, qua Apostolicas Sedes habere et
Epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hune modum in Scripturis cano-
nicis, ut eas que ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis catholicis, praeponat eis quas
queedam non accipiunt: in eis vero que non accipiuntur ab omnibus, preponat eas
quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis
Ecelesiz tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi,
quamquam hoe facile invenire non possit, zequalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas
puto.” Ib. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. ο. 8. iii. part. 1. col. 23.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 811
Manichees, he says, ‘ But I would not believe the Gospel, if the
authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” ἢ
But that “the authority of the Catholic Church” was not
the sole motive that induced him to believe the Gospel, 15. evi-
dent from what we have already quoted above from his Confes-
sions ; nor does the passage imply as much, but only that “the
authority of the Catholic Church” was one necessary ground
upon which his belief rested; and that that “ authority” was
not absolute in his view, is evident, not only from other pas-
sages, but from the words that precede, where, after enumerating
the motives which induced him to prefer the Catholic Church,
and remarking that none of these were to be found with the
Manichees, but only the promise of the truth, he adds, —‘“ which
“ indeed, if it is so clearly manifested that it cannot be doubted
“« of, is to be preferred to all those things by which I am retained
“in the Catholic Church.” "
This passage, therefore, if explained so as to be consistent
with Augustine’s own statements elsewhere, means no more
than that the witness of the Church to the Scriptures is an im-
portant and necessary part of the grounds upon which we believe
the Scriptures. And if the construction of the argument seems
to imply more, it is an inconsistency in which we must judge of
Augustine’s real sentiments by the general tenor of his state-
ments, rather than by a casual argument in a controversial
work, and an argument which, if I mistake not, savours more
of the ingenuity of the sophist than the simplicity and force of
truth.
Curysostom. (fl. a. 398.)
Many other testimonies in favor of our views might be added
from other writers, but, not to multiply them unnecessarily, we
1 «Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholice Ecclesize commoveret
auctoritas.” Ip. Contra Ep. Man. quam voc. Fundam. ce, 5. viii. 154.
2 ΤΡ. ib. ὁ. 4. viii. 153. See the passage, p. 168 above.
3 See Laup’s Conf. with Fisher, ὃ 16. n. 20. p. 52. and § 19. n. 2. pp. 81, 2.
ed. 1686; and STrnLINGFLEET’s Vindication of the Answer to some late papers,
p. 47, 8. ed. 1687.
312 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
conclude with Chrysostom, who, in his first homily on Matthew,
refers to the internal evidence of the Gospels, as showing the
fidelity of the writers, ! and also that they were assisted by the
Spirit of God, * and to the influence and success of ther writings
in the world at large, as showing that a Divine power accom-
panied them.*
SECTION VII.—-CONCLUDING REMARKS,
I have thus endeavoured to set before the reader the sentiments
of the most esteemed of the early Fathers on all the five points
which form the subject of this work; and I leave it with him
to determine, after a careful consideration of their statements,
whether such language could have been used by them if they
had held the doctrine of the Tractators; whether in fact their
statements are not entirely opposed to that doctrine. Such
statements, and the opinion that the traditional doctrine of “ the
Church ” is a part of the Rule of faith or an authority binding
on the conscience, are entirely inconsistent with one another.
Some of the earliest Fathers, indeed, do refer to the consent
of the Apostolical Churches as sufficient to establish certain
elementary facts of the Christian faith; but even they do not
allege that consent as proving more than those few articles, and
at the same time declare, that Holy Scripture fully sets forth
all those doctrines, and they appeal to this tradition of the Apo-
stolical Churches only to meet the counter appeal of the heretics.
And the language even of one of these Fathers, namely Ireneus,
in a passage already quoted,* shows that he was well aware, that
there were some, when he wrote, who, though they had personal
succession from the Apostles even in the highest seats of the —
Church, were not to be trusted as their successors in doctrine.
And Tertullian clearly contemplates the possibility of there
being such cases.* So that their own admissions show, that if
‘ Crys. In Matt. hom. 1. §. 2. Op. tom. vii. p. 5. C.p.6. A, B.
* Ip. ib. § 3. vii. 8. A. 4 See above, vol. ii. p. 340.
8 Το. ib. § 4. vii. 8. C. 9. A, B. 5 See above, vol. li. p. 339.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 313
they seem in some passages to claim the consent of αἰΐ the
Churches whose ministers had personal succession from the
Apostles in favor of what they considered the orthodox faith,
those claims must be understood with some limitations.
And after their time we find the language of the Fathers
considerably altered in this respect. They appeal indeed to the
doctrine of what they considered “the Church” and “the
Fathers,” but their appeals are of a more indefinite and general
kind, as indeed amidst the infinite multiplication of churches
they could not but be. And while they of course refer to that
doctrine as a confirmation of their views and of the correctness
of their interpretation of Scripture, they never put it forward as
a part of the Rule of faith, or as binding upon the conscience.
They hold necessarily, as a matter of fact, that those who did
not receive that doctrine in fundamental points were involved in
fatal error. But not because that doctrine had any authority
over the conscience in its character of Church-tradition, but
only from their persuasion of its conformity with Holy Scripture.
They knew that various bodies of men had separated from what
they held to be “the Church,” some of them haying the Epis-
copal succession, and that truth was not necessarily with the
majority ; and therefore in their zeal for “ the Church,” which
was often hot enough, they did not make its Tradition the final
court of appeal. And these divisions in the early Church are
too often completely forgotten, or at least treated as if they were
forgotten. It is argued as if for several centuries all the fol-
- lowers of Christ formed one undivided harmonious body, and one
doctrinal Tradition pervaded the whole ; whereas it is clear from
Scripture, that even before the death of the Apostles there were
Churches possessed of all the outward marks of Churches of
Christ that had swerved from the true faith. And therefore
any Patristical appeals to the doctrine of “the Church” of
Christ, were but appeals to that which the writer considered to
be so. Immediately the nominal Church became divided, the
exercise of private judgment as to what was the true faith be-
came a matter of necessity.
Had the Fathers held the views of the Tractators, they would
have said, like them, that the Tradition of the Church, as repre-
314 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
senting the oral teaching of the Apostles was a divine informant,
and entitled to equal veneration and regard with the holy Scrip-
tures; they would, like them, have olyected to a reference to
Holy Scripture to determine any question, and made the Church’s
interpretation of Scripture the Judge of controversies. But this
they have not done. The passages adduced from them by our
opponents and the Romanists fall far short of the statements
required for the support of their views; for, however strongly
the Fathers may appeal to the teaching of what they considered
“ the Church” and her earlier divines, they never put forward
such teaching as binding the consciences of men.
The great test of their real views on the subject is the con-
duct they pursued when any great controversy had arisen on an
important point of doctrine. In such a case, according to the
views of our opponents, an appeal to Scripture should have been
passed over as wholly inconclusive, and the determination of the
matter made to rest on the Tradition of the Church. And our
opponents, conscious of this, have endeavoured to make it appear,
that the Council of Nice did proceed after this fashion. But how
strangely incorrect their representations on this point have been,
I have already, I hope, fully proved. And the real course pur-
sued by the Council, as shown by the accounts of contemporary
authors above quoted, is one of the strongest possible proofs
that the doctrine of our opponents respecting Tradition was not
that of the early Church. The Nicene Fathers did not pretend
to decide the matter before them from Tradition, but, on the
contrary, from a careful evamination of the language of Holy
Scripture.
And so we find both Augustine when reasoning with the
Arians,! and Optatus when reasoning with the Donatists,? dis-
tinctly repudiating the notion that the judgment of what they
considered “the Church” was decisive respecting the matter in
dispute, and expressly appealing to Scripture as that which alone
was fitted to be the judge of the controversy, as alone havy-
ing authority over the consciences of the disputants. They
clearly saw, that the decision of a portion of the nominal Church
1 See pp. 159, 160 above. 2 See pp. 126, 127 above.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 915
could not take away the right of private judgment as to the
meaning of Holy Scripture.!
1 The remarks made by the Tractarian Reviewer of the first edition of this
work on the extracts given from the Fathers (Brit. Crit. for July 1841, pp.
98—104.) need but little notice, as he scarcely pretends seriously to grapple
with them. Some of his remarks I have already noticed in previous pages, But
I may add a word here on one which is put forward as the leading proof of the
incorrectness of my inference from the passages I have quoted from the
Fathers. It is urged, that, “on the one hand, the Church from time to time
added new tests, belief in which was a necessary condition to Church-membership,
while on the other hand Church-membership was considered by all Churchmen as
essentially necessary to covenanted salvation,” and therefore that it was impos-
sible that they could have recognised the principle that Scripture was the sole
authoritative Rule of faith to each individual, or as he chooses more obscurely to
put it, “that each man was bound to draw his own faith from Scripture.” And,
palpable and even puerile as this sophism is, it is put forward as something quite
irrefragable, and my stupidity is considered so great for supposing such a thing,
that the Reviewer complacently remarks, “It seems insipid and inadequate to
call this sort of mental confusion a contradiction in terms.” Now is this writer
actually unable to see the difference between the rulers of a Church laying down
certain doctrines both as tests for Church-membership and also as fundamental
doctrines of the Christian faith, that is, (for it amounts to nothing more) bearing
their testimony to what they believe to be the truth, and of course acting accord-
ing to their convictions, and their setting themselves up as the authority upon
which men are bound to receive the truth? On which side is the “ mental con-
fusion,” I leave the reader to determine.
The writer adds, with a similar marvellous self-delusion, that “in the early
centuries writers of the Church used language which may bear an Arian appear-
ance [an important admission, this]; after the Council of Niczea they do so no
longer,” and therefore that if “they modified their language into accordance with
its decrees, they did not consider themselves justified in interpreting Scripture on
their own private judgment. Q. E. D.” But who are these “writers of the
Church’? who “modified their language,” ἄς. ὃ Simply those who, exercising
their “private judgment’’ on the meaning of Scripture as to the point in dispute
between the majority and minority of the Nicene Council, believed the majority
to have determined the matter rightly, and therefore shaped their language
accordingly. And when the Reviewer limits the term “writers of the Church”
to those who adopted the doctrine agreed to by a majority of the Nicene Council,
he is doing the very thing which he repudiates, namely, exercising his private
judgment on the meaning of Scripture, and determining that the decision of the
majority in the Council of Nicza was right, and that the more numerous Council
of Ariminum was wrong ; though he admits that some of the earlier Fathers “ used
language which may bear an Arian appearance.” Why are not the Arian bishops
to be considered “writers of the Church?” He will reply, They were heretics.
But how does he prove that? If he says,—The Church condemned them,—he is
assuming by an exercise of his private judgment that their opponents constitute
the Church. And on what ground does he do this, but because he believes them
to be orthodox and the Arians heterodox ? To confine the phrase “ the Church”
to one portion of the nominal followers of Chmst, and then argue that all their
316 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS
Moreover, even if the Fathers had appealed to the Tradition
of the Church as, in their day, determining the true faith and the
right interpretation of Scripture, the difference of our circum-
stances from theirs is such, that no conclusion could be drawn
from that fact as to what the doctrine of those very Fathers on
the value of Tradition would have been at the present day.
They had some little power of ascertaining what that Tradition
was, however insufficient for the purpose. We have scarcely any.
For, for any account of the doctrine of the Christian Church
during the first three centuries (by far the most important
period) we have but the remains, mutilated, corrupted, and
interpolated, of a few writers scattered over the whole of that
period. And we cannot admit the assertions of two or three
authors, however respectable, to be a sufficient proof of the
doctrine of the whole Primitive Church, even though they may
claim the consent of all the Churches in their favor. For the
known early corruption of some of the Apostolical Churches
proves that there could not have been, strictly speaking, such
opponents are wrong because they are condemned by “the Church,” is merely
to throw dust into our own eyes and become voluntary self-deceivers.
And it is clear that when the early Fathers spoke of “the Church” and the
duty of receiving the doctrine of the Church, they did so as believing the body of
which they spoke to have retained the orthodox faith, and that they were exer-
cising their private judgment as to which among the great body of nominal
Christians were orthodox, and which were not. And consequently, however
strongly they may speak as to the necessity of belonging to and holding the
doctrines of “the Church,” they do not give to the decrees of “the Church” any
intrinsic authority over the consciences of men.
While noticing the Reviewer’s statements on this subject, I cannot refrain also
from pointing out how remarkably his statements are opposed on various impor-
tant points to those of the Fathers. For instance, his objection to the custom of
giving to students texts of Scripture in support of the statements in the XXXIX
Articles, with an intimation that the only effect is, that they are “shocked and
alarmed by the miserably scanty amount of Scripture testimony oh which the
very foundation of their faith seemed to rest.” (p. 57.) Instead of which it
appears that they are to be taught to receive everything on the authority of
the Church. Compare with such statements the language of (to mention no
more) Cyril of Jerusalem, as giveninp. 110 above. Again; let his scornful repu-
diation of the notion of there being any direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon
the minds of individuals for the purpose of teaching them the full meaning and
import of Scripture (see pp. 67,8; 78; &c.), be compared with the language of the
Fathers in the fifth section of this chapter; as, for instance, of Chrysostom and
Theodoret ; and it will be seen at once, that there is a fundamental difference in
the systems on which the Fathers and the Tractators ground their instructions.
wy
. ον
ω ¥
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. O17
consent ; nor had these authors sufficient means to ascertain
the real state of the case; and Origen claims such consent in
favor of some of his errors, which proves how seriously we
might be misled if we depended upon such assertions.
When therefore we weigh the statements of the Fathers in
connexion with a consideration of the circumstances in which
we find ourselves placed, the groundlessness of our opponents’
appeal to them becomes still more manifest, for even if their
statements were what our opponents would fain have them con-
sidered to be (but which I entirely deny them to be) they would
not support the notion, that the Fathers would have advised us
to make Tradition part of the Rule of faith.
And as to any charge of obscurity against Holy Scripture, as
it respects necessary points of faith, it would be indeed a waste
of words to add anything to the extracts given im the fifth
section of this chapter.
[ 318 ]
CHAPTER XI.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AND HER
PRINCIPAL DIVINES, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK.
Te doctrine of the Tractators on the subject of “ Tradition,”
has been very confidently put forth by them as the doctrine of
the Church of England; and an attempt has been made by Mr.
Keble in particular to prove this to be the case, by a series of
extracts from the works of Anglican divines.
Now, it cannot fail to strike the reader as very remarkable,
that, if the doctrine of the Church of England on this subject
is, as we are now told, the same as that of the Church of Rome,
our divines should have troubled themselves to write, as un-
deniably they have written, against the Romish doctrine of Tra-
dition and the Rule of Faith. If the question between us and
Rome on this subject had been (as Dr. Pusey tells us) “ purely
historical,” relating to the genuineness of certain particular
traditions, to this question would the dissertations and remarks
of our divines have been limited. There is, therefore, a primd
facie case against such a notion of the strongest kind. And I
will venture to add, and will now endeavour to prove, that the
further the inquiry be extended, the more complete and over-
whelming will be the evidence against their having entertained
such views.
The extracts given by Mr. Keble in support of the system
under consideration, are to be found in No. 78 of the Tracts for
the Times, entitled, “Testimony of writers in the later English
“ Church, to the duty of maintaining, quod semper, quod ubique,
“ quod ab omnibus traditum est,’—a copy of which is subjoined
to his Sermon on Tradition, and the following remarks made
1 See vol. i. pp. 35, 86.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK, 319
respecting it; “He [i.e. Mr. Keble] is principally anxious to
“remove any impression which may exist of his wishing to re-
“ commend a new theory, or rule of faith, devised for present
“ occasions, by any particular school of divines, now or at any
“ former time. On the contrary, he is persuaded that what he
“ is endeavouring to inculcate, is no other than the very rule of
“the Church of England, as distinguished on the one hand
“from Romish usurpation, on the other from rationalistic licen-
“ tiousness. And in support of this persuasion, he appeals to the
“ collection of authorities concerning Tradition, from the standard
“ English divines, under the title of Catena Patrum, which is sub-
“joined to this reprint of the sermon, by permission of the
“ Editor of the Tracts for the Times. If he err in his estimate
“ of the spirit of the English Church, it will appear, he trusts,
“ by those papers, that at least his error was not of his own
“ invention—that he has both high and antient authority for
feats (p> 68.)
And in the introductory observations in this Tract, we are
told, that the extracts were intended “ to show, that the Succes-
“ sion of our standard divines ever since their [the Reformers’ |
“ tumes, understood them to hold that view of doctrine which it has
“ been the endeavour of these Tracts (Tracts for the Times] ¢o re-
“ commend ; and that no other can be taken, without contradicting
both that illustrious Succession itself, and its judgment concerning
** the Reformers.”
These remarks, be it observed, are made of those very men, of
whom Mr. Newman before long discovered, that, in the Service of
the Eucharist, they “mutilated the tradition of 1500 years,” !
that the Articles are “ the offspring of an uncatholic age,” 5 that
“it is NoToRIous that the Articles were drawn up by Protes-
tants, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism,’’* the
word Protestantism being used to describe those views in our
Church, which the Tractators oppose, their interpretation of the
Articles being admitted to be “ Anti- Protestant,” * and “ not that
which their authors took themselves ;” ὃ and of whom Mr. Keble
1 Letter to Faussett.
2 Tract 90. p. 4. 3 Ib. p. 80.
4 Tb. 5.10; Ἀ. 81.
320 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
himself tells us elsewhere, that, in the revision of the Liturgy,
they gave up altogether the Ecclesiastical Tradition “ regarding
“ certain very material points in the celebration, if not in the
« doctrine of the holy Eucharist ;”* and “ must have felt them-
“ selves precluded ever after from urging the necessity of Episco-
< nacy, or of anything else on the ground of uniform Church-
« Tradition.” *
Such are the astounding self-contradictions of the Tractators !
“ The doctrine maintained,” says the Tract, is, that “ Catholic
<¢ Tradition teaches revealed truth, Scripture proves it ; Scripture
< is the document of faith, Tradition the witness of it ; THE TRUE
«“ CREED 15 THE CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, Or
“ Scripturally-proved Tradition; Scripture, by itself, teaches
<< mediately, and proves decisively ; Tradition by itself, proves
“ negatively, and teaches positively; Scriprure anp TRrapr-
“ @ION, TAKEN TOGETHER, ARE THE JOINT RULE OF FAITH.”
(Tract 78. p. 2.)
These extracts, therefore, are put forth by Mr. Keble, and the
Editor of the “Tracts for the Times,” as proving, that the
divines whom they have quoted, maintained their views of the
doctrine of Tradition.
The documents and authors quoted in this Tract, are as
follow.
1. Jewel. 2. Convocation of 1571. 3. The Queen’s Council
of 1582. 4. Bilson. 5. Hooker. 6. Convocation of 1603.
7. Overall. 8. Morton. 9. Field. 10. White, (F.) 11. Hall.
12. Laud. 18. Montague. 14. Jackson. 15. Mede. 16. Usher.
17. Bramhall. 18. Sanderson. 19. Cosin. 20. Hammond.
21. Thorndike. 22. Taylor. 23. Heylin. 24. Commissioners of
1662. 25. Pearson. 26. Barrow. 27. Bull. 28. Stillingfleet.
29. Ken. 80. Beveridge. 31. Patrick. 32. Sharp. 33. Potter.
34. Grabe. 35. Brett. 36. Hicks. 37. Collier. 38. Leslie.
39. Waterland. 40. Bingham. 41. Jebb. 42. Van Mildert.
These form Mr. Keble’s “illustrious cloud of witnesses for
Primitive Tradition,” as part of the Rule of faith in the Church
of England; and upon these authorities I, for my part, am
quite willing to let the decision of the question rest. Mr. Keble
1 Pref. to Hooker, p. lxii. 2 Tb.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 321
shall have the full benefit of his own choice of authorities; and
if he can prove, that the witnesses whom he has cited support,
as a body, his views of the subject, I will willingly allow, that I
have greatly misconceived the tenets of our Church upon this
important question. I say not, indeed, that all the views of
Archbishop Laud, and such as agreed with him, are to be held
to be the views of the Church of England; still less, that the
statements of such divines as the Nonjurors Brett and Hickes, a
small and extreme section of a small party in our Church, (but who
are now most extraordinarily put forward as the best witnesses
of the doctrines of that Church,) are to be taken as our guide ;
but this I am quite willing to allow, that if the witnesses ad-
duced by Mr. Keble on this subject could be shown generally,
and as a body, to have supported his views, this would go far to
prove that they were the views of the Church of England.
I will content myself, therefore, with Mr. Keble’s own wit-
nesses, but not with his examination of them. The principle
upon which he proceeds seems to be, that every one who asserts
that respect is due to Antiquity, supports his system; and con~
sequently he has obtained, without the least difficulty, a number
of passages from various authors, all, as he tells us, defending
his views. I will, therefore, venture to propose a little friendly
cross-examination to these witnesses on the particular points
which make up his system. In other words, in reply to extracts,
containing, for the most part, merely general and indefinite tes-
timonies of respect for the writings of the Primitive Church,
(which all agree, more or less, to be due to them,) I will en-
deavour to set before the reader, clearly and fully, the real views
of these authors upon the points in question.
To follow Mr. Keble through the whole list, is neither neces-
sary nor practicable within any reasonable limits; unless, in-
deed, we could be satisfied with following the example of the
“ Catena” in giving a passage containing merely some general
remarks, capable, when standing alone, of being understood in
any way in which a partial reader might choose to interpret
them. Our purpose, however, is altogether different. It is to
give a full and correct representation of the views of those to
whom we appeal, by passages directly bearing upon the par-
VOL. III. Y
522 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
ticular points in question, and by a full exhibition of their state-
ments upon those points. It is obvious that to do this with all
to whom Mr. Keble has referred, would require a volume of itself ;
and that if a fair selection be made from the witnesses adduced,
and their views be fully inquired into, the result of such an
examination will suffice to show the real state of the case.
Two thirds at least of the authorities quoted by Mr. Keble,
attribute no more value to the testimony of Patristical Tra-
dition, than what we have freely granted to it ; and of the rest,
hardly any, perhaps none, go further, than to use those words
of respect towards it, which may or may not imply, that they
held that testimony to have authority in the strict sense of the
word ; and which, in the case of many of them, certainly were
not intended to imply it; because the writers have elsewhere
disclaimed such a notion.
It is not, however, a point which we need feel at all solicitous
to prove, that no one, in our communion, has ever broached
similar sentiments to those maintained in the system under
review, (though I should find it difficult to mention one who
ever adopted the system of the Tractators as a whole,) and there-
fore, without being anxious to deny, that some few of those
mentioned in the Catena, such as the Nonjurors Brett, Hickes, &e.
may have maintained the views we are here opposing, I am
satisfied with showing, that it is one altogether opposed to the
views advocated in the authorized documents of the Church of
England, and by the great body of her Divines.!
Of the Extracts in the Catena, the 2nd and 6th are taken
from the public documents of the Church of England; and the
3rd and 24th from documents with which her name is con-
nected. I will first, then, investigate the testimony borne by
the Church of England herself on such points, in her public and
authorized documents, noticing in that inquiry the four extracts
given by Mr. Keble, to which we have just alluded; and will
then proceed to examine the statements of the following é¢welve
from among Mr. Keble’s witnesses ; and I think the selection
will be allowed to be fairly made, and to include the élite of his
Catena. 7
For the statement of the points in dispute, see pp. 6,7 above.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. O25
1. Jewel. 2. Hooker. 3. Morton. 4. Hall. 5. Laud. 6. Jack-
son. 7. Usher. 8. Taylor. 9. Stillingfleet. 10. Patrick. 11.
Waterland. 12. Van Mildert.
Tue Cuurcu or ENGLAND
(Speaking in her authorized documents).
This is, of course, beyond all comparison the most important
witness ; and from all the various documents of authority, setting
forth, directly or indirectly, the doctrine of our Church, Mr.
Keble can find nothing to quote in support of his views, but a
canon passed in the Convocation of 1571, and one passed in
that of 1603.
The canons of 1571, having never received the Royal confir-
mation in writing, were never put in force, and are, in a legal
point of view, of no authority ;! but are, no doubt, of much im-
portance and authority as witnesses of the sentiments of the
English Church at that time. The canon in question relates to
preachers, and orders that “they shall, in the first place, be
“ careful never to teach anything from the pulpit to be religiously
“ held and believed by the people, but what is agreeable to the
“ς doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and collected out of
“ that very doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and antient bishops ;
1 The Queen's assent seems to have been given orally, but not ia scriptis.
See Strype’s Parker ii. 60; and his Grindal, p. 247; and Cardwell’s Synodal. i.
113, 114. Hence Collier says;—‘“ These Canons, though subscribed by the
Bishops of both provinces, wanted the Queen’s ratification. The Queen was
acquainted with what passed in the Synod, and approved the proceedings ; but,
as it happened, the Royal assent was not given iz form. Archbishop Grindal,
therefore, demurred to the execution cf these Canons; he wasafraid a Premunire
might reach him. And it seems his scruples were not without reason; for, by
venturing thus far, he would have been liable to prosecution, and must have cast
himself upon the Queen’s mercy.” Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 531. Nay
more, had they received such confirmation, they would not be of any authority
now,—for “‘ Queen Elizabeth’s confirmations [of the Canons passed in her reign]
extended no farther than her own life.” Archbishop Wake’s State of the
Church, ἄς. p. 507. And, on this ground, they are expressly excluded from “ the
Canons” of our Church, that is, the Canons that are of authority, by Bishop
Gibson, who limits “the Canons” to those of 1603. See his Codex, Pref. pp. x, xi.
In the Canons of 1603, many of the preceding were republished, and put in
force ; but the Canon in question was not of the number.
Υ Ὁ
324 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
« fand there Mr. Keble stops, but the Canon goes on,| and
“ since those Articles of the Christian religion, which have been
“ agreed upon by the Bishops in a lawful and holy Synod....
“ are beyond doubt collected out of the sacred books of the Old
“ and New Testament, and agree in all things with the heavenly
“ doctrine contamed in them; and since the Book of public
“ prayers, and the Book of the consecration of Archbishops,
“« Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, contain nothing repugnant
“ to that doctrine, whoever shall be sent to teach the people,
“ shall confirm the authority and truth of those Articles, not
“ only by their sermons, but also by subscription...... They
« shall not teach vain and senseless opinions, and heresies, and
“© Popish errors opposed to the doctrine and faith of Christ, nor
“anything at all by which the ignorant multitude may be
“ roused to discord, or the love of novelty,” ἕο.
The simple object of this canon, then, was to restrict preach-
ers from bringing any doctrine before their hearers to be
religiously held and believed, for which they had not some
authority in the Catholic Fathers and antient bishops, and that,
in order to prevent their teaching “vain and senseless opinions,
and heresies, and PorisH ERRors.” That is, at a time when a
great change had just been effected in the doctrine professed
in the Church,—and a change from a form of religion, in which
new Articles of faith, utterly unknown (as far as we can find) to
the Primitive Church, had been introduced, — there was a pru-
dent restriction placed upon preachers, to prevent their teaching
ἐς vain and senseless opinions, and heresies, and Popish errors,”
as important truths, viz., that they should be able to support
the doctrine they preached, by the authority of some generally-
received writer or writers of Antiquity. A rule “which [as
“ Bishop Patrick says] was set us on purpose to preserve our
“ preachers from broaching any idle, novel, or Popish doctrines,
“as appears by the conclusion of that injunction.”+ “ The
“ Canon,” says Dr. Waterland, “ does not order, that they shall
“ teach whatever had been taught by Fathers; no, that would
“ have been setting up a new Rule of faith; neither does it say,
“that they shall teach whatsoever the Fathers had collected
1 Br. Parricr’s Discourse about Tradition. Lond. 1683. Pt. 1. § 5. p. 24.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 325
“from Scripture; no, that would have been making them
“ infallible interpreters or infallible reasoners: the doctrine must
“ be found first in Scripture ; only to be the more secure that we
“ have found it there, the Fathers are to be called in to be, as
“it were, constant checks upon the presumption or wantonness
“ of private interpretation. But then, again, as to private inter-
“ pretation, there is liberty enough allowed to it. Preachers
* are not forbidden to interpret this or that text, or hundreds
of texts, differently from what the Fathers have done; pro-
“ vided still they keep within the analogy of faith, and presume
“not to raise any new doctrine; neither are they altogether
“ yestrained from teaching anything new, provided it be offered
“ as opinion only, or an inferior truth, and not pressed as neces-
“ sary upon the people. For it was thought, that there could
“be no necessary article of faith or doctrine now drawn from
“ Scripture, but what the antients had drawn out before from
“the same Scripture: to say otherwise, would imply that the
“ antients had failed universally in necessaries, which is morally
“ absurd.”! A very prudent restriction at that time, and per-
fectly admissible at any time; but, in support of the views of
our opponents, it proves nothing; on the contrary, it is, as
I shall show presently, directly opposed to them. For the
question between us is,—not whether the writings of the Ca-
tholic Fathers that remain to us, are a useful guide, and upon
the whole ranged on the side of the orthodox faith; so that
he who goes contrary to them all in vital points, is in error;
but—whether their consent is authoritative, is part of the
Rule of faith, is binding upon the conscience; and, I might
add, whether, if it were so, with the exception, possibly, of a
very few points laid down in so many words in Scripture, we
could obtain their consentient testimony in favor of any one
contested point of doctrine.
. Now, to the notion that their consent would be authoritative
in itself, our Church, neither here nor elsewhere, holds out the
smallest sanction. The direction was, indeed, a mere practical
recognition of the fact, that the orthodox faith, in all vital points,
1 Warerxann’s Imp. of Doctr. of Trin. ch, vii. On use and value of Eccles.
Autiq. See his Works, yol. v. pp. 317, 18.
530 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
was to be found in the writings of the Catholic Fathers, and a
proposal of them to the clergy, as a useful practical check upon
error. So that preachers in the Church of England might not
bring forward, as a vital doctrine, a crude notion of their own,
for which they could find xo support in any of those writings ;
avery prudent direction in a time of great ecclesiastical ignorance,
and an especial safeguard against “ Popish errors’”—such, for
instance, as that Patristical Tradition is a divineinformant. But
there is a vast difference between a reference to the writings of
the Fathers for such a purpose, and a proposal of their testi-
mony as of intrinsic authority binding upon all Christians.
Nay, that it was not a recognition of the enpossibility of error
being maintained by what might appear very general consent
among them, is evident from the fact, that even the Creeds are re-
ceived by our Church on the sole ground of their being provable
by Scripture, as we shall observe presently. She does not take
even the Creeds on their authority, but because she believes them
to be agreeable to Scripture; their suffrage, no doubt, bemg a
strong additional motive for supposing such to be the sense of
Scripture. She was conscious, that in speaking of the “ Catholic
Fathers” she was exercising the right of private judgment in
determining, among the writers of the Primitive Church, which
were on the side of truth; and therefore did not make even
their consent a final court of appeal. And I add this, because
it might be said, If it is impossible, that all the Catholic Fathers
should have erred, and consequently that what is opposed to or
unsupported by their writings in a vital point, must xecessarily
be erroneous; then it follows, that what is supported by all
of them in such a point, must be infallibly true. Now, however
probable this may be, it is no part of the foundation upon which
our Church has built her faith. Her creed stands on better
grounds.
True it is, that even if this position was granted, our oppo-
nents would gain nothing practically by it ; because such a con-
sent of even the Catholic Fathers whose writings happen to re-
main to us, cannot be proved, so as to enable us to turn it to any
useful purpose. But even this is not maintained by our Church ;
nor is it a point which she is at all concerned to decide. She
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 327
does not put forward the Catholic Fathers as necessarily merra-
ble as a body ; but believing them to have been generally orthodox,
(taking the Scriptures as her standard of judgment,) she, in the
canon under consideration, proposed them to her clergy as such,
and directed their writings to be used as a useful practical check
upon error. And the positive use of their writings was main-
tained to this extent, viz. that some support must be found in
them for every position affecting a vital point.
That this was her meaning, appears also from her having, in
the subsequent part of the canon, put her own Articles on the
same footing. For it will not be contended, that she put forth
these as part of the Rule of faith. No; in both cases she
merely bears witness to what she believes to be the orthodox
doctrine, and gives directions to her clergy, suited to keep them
within the limits of that doctrine.
Nay, further, this very canon is, as far as its authority goes,
utterly subversive of the views of Dr. Pusey and his party.
For their doctrine is, that our authoritative guide for the inter-
pretation of Scripture, and some important points of doctrine, is
the tradition of the ona teaching of the Apostles, preserved to us
in the writings of the Fathers ; whereas this canon ordains, that
nothing is to be advanced to be religiously believed, “ but what
“ is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and
“* COLLECTED out of THAT very doctrine by the Catholic Fathers ;”
clearly showing, that our Reformers held, that the Fathers col-
lected their doctrine out of Scripture, and not (as our opponents
affirm) from the successional delivery of the oral teaching of
the Apostles. And all is forbidden by this canon, but what is
agreeable to Scripture, and coLLecTED by the Fathers our oF
SCRIPTURE. Very good advice for Dr. Pusey and his party at
least, and I hope they will obey the injunction; and thus save
us the infliction (as this canon was intended to do) of divers
“ yain opinions and Popish errors.”
And we may observe, by the way, how completely this canon
. overthrows the statement of Dr. Pusey in his Letter to the
Bishop of Oxford, (p. 28,) that “it is probable that our Church
“ means, that things may be required to be believed, (provided it
“ be not upon peril of salvation,) which are not proved by Holy
328 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ Scripture ; but certain, that, according to her, things not in
“ Holy Scripture, may be subjects of belief;” and yet with
strange inconsistency this very canon is urged upon us three
pages after for our observance.
Moreover, it is to be remarked, that in the authorized Canons
of 1597 and 1603, there is no direction of the kind, nor is there
any recognition of the rule we have been considering in the
Royal Injunctions or Episcopal Visitation Inquiries of the time,
but on the contrary, (as we shall see presently,) only whether
“ any have wilfully maintained and defended any heresies, errors,
“ or false opinions, contrary to the faith of Christ and holy
“* Scripture.” }
And where a rule on the same subject is given in the Canons
of 1603, respecting strangers preaching in cathedrals, it is given
thus ;—“ If any in his sermon shall publish any doctrine, either
ἐς strange or disagreeing from the word of God, or from any of
“ the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Convocation-house,
“ a. 1562, or from the Book of Common Prayer, the Dean or the
“ residents shall. ... give notice of the same to the Bishop,” &c.
(Canon 51.)
As to the Canon of 1603, quoted in the ‘‘ Catena,” it is diffi-
cult to conceive, what support Mr. Keble can suppose his cause
to receive from it. The object of the Canon is to explain the
lawful use of the cross in baptism. And the explanation given
is this, that notwithstanding the sign of the cross had been
abused by the Romanists, yet that “the Church of England hath
“ yetained still the sign of it in baptism, following therem the
“ Primitive and Apostolical Churches, and accounting it a Law-
“ Fun outward ceremony and honorable badge, whereby the in-
“ fant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the
“ cross.’ Therefore the Church of England (that 1 may not
omit to refer to passages which Mr. K. might thik favorable
to him), following “ the rules of the Scriptures and the practice
of the Primitive Church,” and “ with reverence retaining those
“ ceremonies, which do neither endamage the Church of God,
“ nor offend the minds of sober men,” retains the use of the sign
of the cross in baptism as alawful ceremony. Well, what is the
1 Vis, Art. 1. Eliz. See Concilia Magn. Brit. ἄς, ed, Wilkins. iv. 190,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 829
conclusion we are to draw from this? Has this the slightest ten-
dency to support the system in aid of which it is quoted? On
the contrary, is it not merely throwing dust in the eyes of the
inexperienced reader to quote such a passage in support of it?
Our Church follows the example of the Primitive Church in re-
taining the sign of the cross in baptism, as she does in many
similar matters (see Canons 31, 32, 33, 60, 74) ; but so far from
regarding that example as authoritative, she distinctly declares
in her 34th Article, that “it is not necessary that traditions and
* ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like, for at all times
“ they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the
“ diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that
“ nothing be ordained against God’s word,” and “every parti-
** cular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and
“ abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by
“ man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.” !
There are two other testimonies, however, quoted by Mr.
Keble, which it may be as well to notice here, though they are
not, strictly speaking, testimonies of the Church, namely, the
extract from the rules given to the Bishops by the Queen’s
Council in 1582, for conducting the controversy with the Papists,
and that from the Report of the Commissioners of 1662.
In the former it is directed, that “if the Papists shall show
“any ground of Scripture, and wrest it to their sense, let it be
“ showed by the interpretation of the old doctors such as were
“ before Gregory I. But if they can show xo doctor that agreed
with them in their said opinion before that time, then to con-
“ clude, that they have no succession in that doctrine from the
“ time of the Apostles, and above four hundred years after,
“ when doctrine and religion were most pure, for that they can
“ show no predecessor whom they might succeed in the same.”
Now this is precisely the same negative position as that main-
tained in the Canon of 1571. Does Mr. Keble suppose,
that there is any Protestant who professes to hold an article of
faith unknown to the whole Christian Church for the first six
centuries? For in that case only the extract would be relevant.
1 See further remarks in the testimony of JEwEL below, and Hooker, Eccl.
Pol. iii. 10.
330 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
All that it proves is the belief of the Council, that the Romish
doctrines censured as unscriptural, were unknown to the whole
Christian Church for the first six centuries; and that if this
could be shown, it was sufficient proof that the censure was
just ; and as an argumentum ad hominem against the Papists, who
professed to follow the Fathers, irresistible. But though the
absence of certain testimony in favor of a doctrine judged un-
scriptural may be held sufficient to condemn it, it is very far
from following that such testimony when in its favor is an
authoritative witness, obliging us to receive it as scriptural.
The negative position maintained in the direction given in the
extract would not, I suppose, be called in question in the abstract
by any one professing the Christian faith, except possibly by
some unusually extravagant Romanists. We willmgly grant,
therefore, that a doctrine, respecting which the testimony of
Scripture is even doubtful, which can find no support im the
Patristical writings of the first six centuries, (considering the
wide range taken by those that remain to us,) has no claim upon
us as vital, and is open to just suspicion ; while at the same time
we maintain, that the support which any doctrine does appear
to us to receive in those writings, is not any part of the ground
upon which our faith should rest in the reception of it. Our
faith should rest solely and entirely upon the (as it appears to
us) evident revelation of it in the Scriptures.
The other extract, which is from the Reply of the Commis-
sioners of 1662 to the Presbyterians (§ 16), is given as follows,
— Ancient Liturgies in the Church, St. Chrysostom’s, St.
“ Basil’s, St. James’s, and others, and such things as are found
“in them all, consistent with Catholic and primitive doctrine,
“may well be presumed to have been from the first, especially
“since we find no original of these Liturgies from General
“ Councils.” To the form in which this extract has been given
I must beg to call the attention of the reader. The passage
referred to stands in the original thus ;— That there were an-
“ cient Liturgies in the Church is evident. St. Chrysostom’s,
“ St. Basil’s and others, and the Greeks tell us of St. James’s,
“ much elder than they ; and though we find not in all ages
“whole Liturgies, yet it is certain that there were such in the
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. ΠΣ:
“ oldest times, by those parts which are extant, as Sursum
“ Corda, &c., Gloria Patri, &c., Benedicite, Hymnus Cheru-
“ binus, &c., Vere dignum et justum, &c., Dominus vobiscum,
“ Et cum Spiritu tuo, with divers others. Though those that
“ are extant may be interpolated, yet such things as are found in
“ them all consentient [in another edition consistent] to catholic
“‘ and primitive doctrine, may well be presumed to have been
“* from the first, especially since we find no original of these
“ Liturgies from General Councils.” The way in which this
passage has been altered is not a little remarkable. The ori-
ginal says nothing, it will be observed, in favor of the authority
of our copies of the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom, &c. but rather
the contrary, while the professed extract speaks of them as ge-
nuine. However, to let that pass, what can either prove as to our
present subject? It is asserted, that such liturgical forms as
are found in αἰΐ the antient Liturgies consentient to catholic and
primitive doctrine may well be presumed to have been from the
first. Well; this is a very good argument in favor of Liturgies,
in support of which it was advanced, but does it prove anything
in favor of the Tractators’ system? Will Mr. Keble reply,
These prayers are authoritative proofs of doctrine, if they have
“ been from the first?” Nay, but the test here proposed of
their having been from the first is their being “consentient to
catholic and primitive doctrine.” So that this passage will not
help him to advance one step in gaining an authoritative tradi-
tion. And here we see how much the alteration of the passage
favors Mr. Keble’s views, for the admission in the original, that
these liturgies may be interpolated, renders it necessary to
adopt this test, which according to Mr. Keble’s version of the
passage would not be necessary. I do not charge him with the
alteration. Far from it. I believe him incapable of so acting.
But I suppose he found the passage quoted somewhere as he
has given it, and did not verify it.
Having considered the extracts brought forward by Mr. Keble
in support of his system, I now proceed to point out those pas-
sages from which the views of our Church respecting it may, I
hope, be without difficulty gathered.
The dogmatical works of authority in our Church are, first,
302 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
those which have received the highest degree of authority,
namely, the Articles,! Homilies, and Catechism, and, secondly,
those which have received the Ecclesiastical and Royal sanction,
but not that of the whole Legislature, namely, Jewel’s Apology
and Nowell’s Catechism.? The testimonies given in the note
1 Among the “ Requests and Petitions of the Lower House of Convocation for
discipline,” in the Convocation of 1562, at which our present Articles were settled,
the second is, —“ That certain Articles, containing the principal grounds of the
“ Christian religion, be set forth, as well to determine the truth of things this day
“in controversy, as also to show what errors are chiefly to be eschewed.” (Wilk.
Cone. iv. 240.) These Articles, therefore, being published in compliance with
this request, may reasonably be considered as intended to take a wider scope than
some would have us suppose ; and this indeed we might infer from their title,
* Articles....for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing
of consent touching true religion.”
2 Bishop Jewel’s “Apology” is recognised in Canon 30 of the Canons of 1603
as “the Apology of the Church of England,” and is quoted by Hooker (Eccl.
Pol. ii. 6.) under the name of “The English Apology.” Collier states, that it
“‘ was approved by the Queen and set forth with the consent of the Bishops.”
(Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p.479.) And Bishop Jewel himself, in his Reply to Harding,
says, that he had the concurrence of the whole English clergy, and that the book
had the Queen’s licence. It was first published in 1562, the very same year as
our present Articles, and ‘by Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles, and
four successive Archbishops, the Apology was ordered to be read and chained up
in all Parish Churches throughout England aud Wales.” (Watt, sub nom. Jewel.)
And of this work and Nowell’s Catechism, Bishop Randolph thus speaks in the
Preface to his “ Enchiridion:”— “My choice has been principally directed to
such works as had the sanction of public authority, and which may, therefore, be
relied on as containing the final and decided opinions of our Reformers, approved
of in the general by the Church at large .... Of this kind, that is, thus publicly
received, were Jewel’s Apology and Nowell’s Catechism, the former of which is
said to have been published with the consent of the bishops, and was always under-
stood to speak the sense of the whole Church, in whose name it is written ; the
latter had the express sanction of Convocation.... Both these works were pub-
licly received and allowed.”
Nowell’s Catechism was first published in 1570 (an abridgment, called his
Middle Catechism, appearing also in the same year) after having passed through
various hands for their suggestions; as may be seen in the summary account
given of its history by Dr. Jacobson in the preface to his edition of the work
(Oxon. 1835.); and received the express sanction of one of the Canons of 1571,
which orders,—* Ludimagistri nullam docebunt Grammaticam, nisi eam quam
solam Regia Majestas per omne regnum in omnibus scholis legi mandavit; nec
alium Latinum Catechismum quam qui editus est anno 1570, quem etiam
Anglice redditum, pueros, qui Latine nesciunt, docere volumus.”
The 79th Canon of 1604 also orders, that “all schoolmasters shall teach in
English or Latin, as the children are able to bear, the larger or shorter Catechism
heretofore by public authority set forth.” And there can be no doubt, as both
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 333
below abundantly prove, that these two latter works are of no
inconsiderable authority as faithful representations of the doc-
trine of our Church. The indirect sources from which the doc-
trine of our Church is to be gathered are, first, our authorized
Liturgical Forms and Ecclesiastical Laws,! and, secondly, in
Archdeacon Churton in his Life of Nowell (p. 191) and Dr. Jacobson (loe. cit.)
observe, that the books here intended are those of Nowell.
And finally (not to multiply authorities unnecessarily, of which more may be
found in Dr. Jacobson’s Preface), both Nowell’s Catechism and Jewel’s Apology
are thus enjoined by a Statute of the University of Oxford in 1578:—“1. Ad
extirpandam heresim quamcunque et ad informandam in vera pietate juven-
tutem, libros hosce legendos censemus et statuimus, viz. Catechismum Alexandri
Novelli Majorem Latine et Grece, vel Catechismum Johannis Calvini Latine
Greece et Ebraice, vel Elementa Christiane Religionis Andree Hyperii, vel Cate-
chesin Heydelburgensem pro captu auditorum et arbitrio legentium. 2. His
adjungi possuntHenrici Bullingeri Catechesis pro adultis, et Institutiones Calvini,
vel Apologia Ecclesia Anglicane, vel Articuli Religionis in Synodo Londinensi
conscripti et authoritate Regia editi cum explicatione locorum communium testi-
moniis a Sacra Scriptura aut interdum e Patribus desumptis. Ad primam lecti-
onem juniores, ad secundam provectiores omnes nullo gradu insignitos astringi
volumus. 3. Catechismos omnes, sane huic doctrine contrarios aliosque libros
superstitiosos et Papisticos legi et haberi interdicimus.” (Ant. a Wood, Hist. et
Antiq. Univ. Oxon. vol. i. p. 296. ed. 1674.)
1 The ecclesiastical laws may conveniently be classed under two divisions, first,
those which were made previous to the Reformation; and secondly, those which
have been made since.
First, those which were made previous to the Reformation.
These consist partly of the Canons made in national and provincial Councils of
our own Church, and partly ofthe laws adopted from the Civil and Common
Canon Law, both of which were, to a considerable extent, received here in the
Ecclesiastical Courts, though neither of them, as a whole, or as having any
authority here of themselves, not even the Canon Law ; and lastly of Acts of Par-
liament, and customs, or Common Law relating to ecclesiastical matters. (See
Dr. R. Costy’s Prim. Lin. Polit. Eccl. Angl.; Grpson’s Codex, (Introdn.) BLack-
STONE and Bury.) Those adopted from the Civil and Common Canon Law, were
either introduced by consent, and thus became, in time, by usage, the Common
Law of the land, or by authority of Parliament. “All the strength,” says
Blackstone, “that either the Papal or Imperial laws have obtained in this realm
—or, indeed, in any other kingdom in Europe—is only because they have been
admitted and received by immemorial usage and custom in some particular cases,
and some particular courts, and there they form a branch of the leges non scripta,
or customary laws; or else because they are in some other cases introduced by
consent of Parliament; and then they owe their validity to the leges scripte, or
Statute Law. This is expressly declared in those remarkable words of the Statute
25 Hen. viii. c. 21, addressed to the King’s Royal Majesty, ‘This your Grace’s
realm, recognising no superior under God, but only your Grace, hath been, and is,
free from subjection to any man’s laws, but only to such as have been devised,
594. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
an inferior degree, the code of laws drawn up by Archbishop
Cranmer and a few others in the time of Edward VI., (the
value of which is, of course, very considerable,)! Convo-
made, and obtained within this realm, for the wealth ofthe same ; or to such other,
as by sufferance of your Grace and your progenitors, the people of this your realm
have taken at their free liberty, by their own consent, to be used among them ;
and have bound themselves, by long use and custom, to the observance of the same,
not as to the observance of the laws of any foreign Prince, Potentate, or Prelate,
but as to the eustomed and antient laws of this realm, originally established as
laws of the same, by the said sufferance, consents, and custom; and none other-
wise.’ (BLACKST. i. 79, 80.)
As it respects the ecclesiastical canons made in this country, it is provided, in
the Act intituled, “The Submission of the Clergy, and Restraint of Appeals,” (25
Hen. viii. c. 19.),—“ That such canons, constitutions, ordinances, and synodals pro-
vincial, being already made, which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the laws,
statutes, and customs of this realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King’s Pre-
rogative Royal, shall now still be used and executed, as they were afore the
making of this Act, till such time as they be viewed, searched, or otherwise
ordered and determined by the said two-and-thirty persons, or the more part of
them, according to the tenor, form, and effect of this present Act.” (GrBson’s
Codex ii. 947.) And as the revision here contemplated never took effect, all such of
these canons asare “not contrariant nor repugnant to the laws, statutes, and cus-
toms of this realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King’s Prerogative Royal,”
are stillin force. On this enactment, Bishop Gibson observes, ‘The clause of
the last-mentioned Act [quoted above] was a recognition of the authority of the
foreign Canon Law in this nation, upon the foot of usage and custom [i. e. as far
as it has been adopted]; to which this clause adds a Parliamentary authority or
enaction to all ow own canons and constitutions, which are not repugnant to the
laws, statutes, and customs of this realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King’s
Prerogative Royal.” (Grpson’s Codex ii. 947.)
In matters of doctrine, however, the Canons in force here previous to the Re-
formation, may be said to be, for the most part, practically superseded, and many
of them, of course, contradicted, by the Articles, homilies, and other recognised
formularies of our Reformed Church. And, in all cases, they are of authority
only when not disagreeing with them.
Secondly, those which have been made since the Reformation. These consist
of Acts of Parliament and the Canons of 1603, which, however, not having been
confirmed by Parliament, do not bind the laity. The Canons of 1640 are of no
force ; for, although they received the confirmation of the King, yet, as Bishop
Stillingfleet says, “After the King’s restoration, an act of Parliament passed
(13 Car. ii. c. 12.) for restoring the bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction, wherein a
clause is added, that this act did not confirm those Canons of 1640, but left the
ecclesiastical laws as they stood 1639; which Act being passed by the King’s
assent, it voids the former confirmation of them, and so leaves them without
force.” (STILLINGFLEET'S Eccl. Cases, p. 258. ed. 1702.)
' This Code was first published in 1571, by John Fox, under the title, “ Refor-
matio legum ecclesiasticarum, ex authoritate primum regis Henrici viii. inchoata ;
Deinde per regem Edovardum vi. provecta adauctaque in hune modum, atque
nune ad pleniorem ipsarum reformationem in lucem edita.” It was commenced
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 890
cation Canons, Royal Injunctions and Episcopal Visitation
Articles.
By these documents let us test the views advanced by the
Tractators on the subject now under consideration.
in the reign of Henry VIII. (as this title witnesses), in the latter end of
which an Act of Parliament was passed, empowering the king to appoint a
commission of thirty-two persons to revise the ecclesiastical laws. And
in the 3d and 4th Edw. VI. a similar Act was passed, and the commissioners
appointed, consisting of eight bishops, eight divines, eight civilians, and eight
common lawyers, having, of course, Archbishop Cranmer at their head, the names
of whom may be seen in Collier, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. Records, No. 61. From these
a sub-committee of eight, consisting of Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Goodrick,
Dr. Cox, Peter Martyr, &c. were appointed by the king to prepare the work.
Whether the work, as it now stands, received the sanction of the body of the
Commissioners, or even of those eight, is doubtful. Indeed, with the exception of
Archbishop Cranmer, it is doubtful who were its authors. For in the “Oratio
D. Josiz Simleri de vita et obitu P. Martyris,” it is said, “ Posteaquam a rege
cura conscribendi leges ecclesiasticas primum xxxil. deinde xvi [? viil.] viris com-
mnissa fuit, effecit Cant. Archiepiscopus ut P. Martyr in horum numero unus esset :
ac tandem etiam cum munus hoc universum uni Cantuariensi a rege fuisset com-
mnissum, tribus tantum ad id desumptis sociis, Gualtero Haddono et Rolando
Taylero J. C. tertium voluit esse Martyrem. Horum opera adjutus eas leges
Kceclesize Anglicane prescripsit que magnam etiam nune laudem habent apud
omnes pios et doctos.” (1583. 4to. p. 16.) And this account is somewhat con-
firmed by a note in Archbishop Cranmer’s handwriting, in a copy of the work in
MS. mentioned by Strype in his Memorials of Cranmer, at the chapter “De
Decimis,” as follows :—“ This is fynished by us, but must be overseen again by
Dr. Haddon.” For Dr. Haddon was not one of the thirty-two commissioners.
And so Strype says,—“The matter was in effect wholly intrusted by the king
[1. 6. Edw. VI.] to the Archbishop [i. e. I suppose upon his finding the rest of the
commissioners inactive in the matter,] who associated to himself, in the active
part of this work, Taylor, Martyr, and Haddon ;” the part of Haddon being to
peruse what the others had drawn up, in order “if anything was less elegantly
expressed to correct it,” but “his corrections are very few, and but of words less
proper ; the work and words were mainly Cranmer’s own.” The MS. copy, men-
tioned above, was seen by Strype among Fox’s MSS., and is “fairly written out
by the Archbishop’s secretary, with the title to each chapter prefixed, and the
index of the chapters at the beginning, both of the Archbishop’s own hand. In
many places there be his own corrections and additions.” (Srrypr’s Mem. of
Cranmer, lib. i.c. 30.) This copy is now in the Harleian Collection of MSS. in
the British Museum; and as Dr. Cardwell observes, “represents the mind of the
Archbishop and probably therefore of the Sovereign respecting such matters as
are contained in it at the close of King Edward’s reign.’ But it must be
observed, that the work as printed in 1571, apparently from a copy belonging to
Abp. Parker, has eight sections more than are contained in this MS. ; and is con-
sidered by Dr. Cardwell as ‘* containing the whole code as revised and approved by
Abp. Parker.’’ (Cardwell’s Pref. to his ed. of the Ref. Leg. Oxf. 1850, p-x.) It is
a work which has always been considered of great value, and is largely quoted by
336 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
First, as to Patristical Tradition being an unwritten word of
God or divine informant in religion.
In the first place, we may fairly ask our opponents to point
out some passage in our authorized ecclesiastical books, that
gives some positive sanction to such a notion. So important a
doctrine as this could not have been overlooked. Surely we
should have been exhorted by our Church, had she entertained
such a notion, to have availed ourselves of this “ divine infor-
mant.” We have a whole homily on the duty of reading the
Scriptures. Where is the corresponding exhortation to avail
ourselves of this other “word of God?” Nowhere. On the
contrary, the only word of God recognised by our Church in
any of her documents is the Scripture. Wherever the phrase
occurs in any of her authorized documents, it is invariably iden-
tified with the Seripture. And the only notices of “ Tradition”
in our Articles and homilies are the following; viz. one in the
34th Article, entitled, “ Of the traditions of the Church,” where
they are identified with the ceremonial rites of the Church, and
it is said of them, “ It is not necessary that traditions and cere-
monies be in all places one and utterly like:” and the other,
in the first homily, where we are warned, “ Let us diligently
** search for the well of life in the books of the New and Old
“ Testament, and not run ¢o the stinking puddles of men’s tradi-
“ tions, devised by men’s imagination, for our justification and
* salvation. For, in holy Scripture is fully contained what we
““ ought to do, and what to eschew, what to believe, what to love,
““ and what to look for at God’s hands at length.”
Nay, more, we are expressly told in Dean Nowell’s Catechism,
that “ the Christian religion 15 to be learnt from no other source
Bishop Gibson in his ‘‘ Codex Juris Eecl. Anglicani,’’ with the observation, ‘‘ To
facilitate the improvement of this constitution by suggesting such useful rules of
order and discipline as have been established abroad or attempted at home......
many of the passages out of the body of ecclesiastical laws, entitled Reformatio
legum, &e. are grafted into this commentary, as candidates for a place in our con-
stitution, in case the Convocation shall think them deserving, or, at least, as not
unworthy the consideration of that learned and venerable assembly.” (Pref,
Ῥ. xiii.) And Collier (who thinks it ‘‘ most probable” that it ‘‘ had passed the
approbation” of all the commissioners, ‘‘ considering it appears in so finished a
condition,”) says, ‘‘it appears to have been drawn up with no small share of
judgment and learning.” (Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 326.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 307
“than from the heavenly word of God himself, which he hath
“< delivered tous in the holy Scriptures ;” and in Jewel’s Apology,
that the Scriptures are “the very sure and infallible rule whereby
“ may be tried whether the Church do swerve or err, and where-~
“ unto all ecclesiastical doctrine ought to be called to account.”
But, to dwell upon this point is needless, for the testimonies
relating to those that follow amply prove the views of our Church
upon this.
Let us proceed to the second and third points, viz. that Catholic
Consent is a part of the divine Rule of faith and practice even
in the fundamental articles, as the authoritative interpreter of
Scripture, and as giving the full development of truths there
but imperfectly developed, and as conveying to us various im-
portant points of divine origin not at all contained in Scripture.
First, as the interpreter of Scripture, and our authoritative
teacher in the fundamentals of religion.
Now, our Church tells us, (Art. 6.) “ Holy Scripture con-
“¢ taineth all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is
“not read therein, nor may be proved THEREBY, is not to be
* yequired of any man that it should be believed as an article of
“ the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”
But if Catholic Consent is the authoritative interpreter of Scrip-
ture, the doctrine so delivered to us as from Scripture is to be
received as true on that authority. If, on the contrary, the
reception of a doctrine is to depend (according to the Article) on
the strength of the proof from Scripture, the authority of the
traditional interpretation is yielded. The Article is but calcu-
lated to mislead, if a necessary part of the proof of the truth of
a doctrine to us is, that Catholic Consent has so interpreted
Scripture.
Our opponents endeavour to get over this difficulty by saying,
that the Article relates only to teachers, not to the people at
large. But this plea will avail them nothing. All that we
contend for is, that full and sufficient proof exists in Scripture
for the orthodox faith, and that men are to be called upon to
believe it only as far as it is so proved. And if this is true as it
respects the teacher, (which would follow from our opponents’
¥OL, ΤΣ; Ζ
338 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
own interpretation of the Article,) it is surely equally true as it
respects the hearer. Ifthe only fit ground of faith to the teacher
is holy Scripture, then is that same Scripture the only fit ground
of faith to the people, unless the teacher is personally infallible,
which I suppose even the Tractators will hardly venture to
affirm.
Further; what says the first homily, entitled, “a fruitful
“ exhortation to the reading and knowledge of holy Scripture ?”
“ Unto a Christian man there can be nothing either more neces-
“sary or profitable than the knowledge of holy Scripture,
“ forasmuch as in it is contained God’s true word, setting forth
“his glory, and also man’s duty. And there is no truth nor
“ doctrine necessary for our justification and everlasting salva-
“ tion, but that is or may be drawn out of that fountaim and
* well of truth. Therefore, as many as be desirous to enter into
“ the right and perfect way unto God, must apply their minds to
“ know holy Scripture; without the which they can neither
“ sufficiently know God and his will, neither their office and
“duty. And as drink is pleasant to them that be dry, and
“ meat to them that be hungry, so is the reading, hearing, search-
“ ing, and studying of holy Scripture, to them that be desirous
“to know God or themselves, and to do his will.” “ Let us
“ς diligently search for the well of life in the books of the New
“ and Old Testament, and not run to the stinking puddles of
“‘ men’s traditions, devised by men’s imagination, for our justi-
* fication and salvation. For, in holy Scripture is FULLY con-
* tained what we ought to po, and what to eschew, what to
* BELIEVE, what to love, and what to look for at God’s hands at
“ length.” ‘These books, therefore, ought to be much in our
“ hands, in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of
“all in our hearts. For the Scripture of God is the heavenly
“‘ meat of our souls, the hearing and keeping of it maketh us
** blessed, sanctifieth us, and maketh us holy ; it turneth our
“souls, it is a hght lantern to our feet. It is a sure, stedfast,
“and everlasting instrument of salvation ; it giveth wisdom to the
“ humble and lowly hearts...... The words of holy Scripture
“be called words of everlasting life, for they be God’s instru-
“ment ordained for the same purpose. They have power to
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 339
“ turn, through God’s promise, and they be effectual through
““ God’s assistance.” “That man is ashamed to be called a
** philosopher, which readeth not the books of philosophy ; and
“to be called a lawyer, an astronomer, or a physician, that is
“ignorant in the works of law, astronomy, and physic. How
** can any man then say, that he professeth Christ and his reli-
* gion, if he will not apply himself (as far forth as he can or
“* may conveniently) to read and hear, and so to know the books
** of Christ's Gospel and doctrine.’ “ Let us, therefore, apply
“* ourselves, as far forth as we can have time and leisure, to know
“ God’s word, by diligent hearing and reading thereof, as many
“‘ as profess God, and have faith and trust in him.” “If you
“be afraid to fall into error by reading of holy Scripture, I
“ shall show you how you may read without danger of error.
“ Read it humbly, with a meek and a lowly heart, to the intent
* you may glorify God, and not yourself, with the knowledge of
“it; and read it not without daily praying to God that he
““ would direct your reading to good effect, and take upon you
“to expound it no further than you can plainly understand it.
“ For as St. Augustine saith, the knowledge of holy Scripture
“is a great, large, and a high place, but the door is very low,
“ so that the high and arrogant man cannot run in, but he must
* stoop low, and humble himself, that shall enter into it. Pre-
** sumption and arrogancy are the mother of all error, and
“ humility needeth to fear no error. For humility will only
“search to know the truth; it will search and will bring
“ together one place with another, and where it cannot find out
“ the meaning, it will pray, it will ask of others that know, and
“‘ will not presumptuously and rashly define anything which it
“ knoweth not. Therefore, the humble man may search any
“truth boldly in the Scripture, without any danger of error.
“ And if he be ignorant, he ought the more to read and to
“ search holy Scripture to bring him out of ignorance.” “1
“ we read once, twice, or thrice, and understand not, let us not
“ cease so, but still continue reading, praying, asking of others,
“ and so, by still knocking, at the last the door shall be opened,
“as St. Augustine saith.” “Thus we have briefly touched
2 ὦ
340 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
*“ some part of the commodities of God’s holy word, which is
“ one of God’s chief and principal benefits, given and declared
“to mankind here on earth.. .... let us hear, read, and know
“ these holy rules, injunctions, and statutes of our Christian
ἘΠ ΤΟΙ ΡΟ Π τ Ὁ - τς let us pray to God (the only author of these
“ heavenly studies) that we may speak, think, believe, live, and
“ depart hence according to the wholesome doctrine and verities
“ of them.”
Throughout the whole homily, not the most remote hint is
given that we are even to consult Catholic Consent. Among all
the directions given for attaining the understanding of Scrip-
ture, not one word points to Church-Tradition. And yet, say
our opponents, Church-Tradition is the authoritative interpreter
of Scripture, and is so held to be by the Church of England !
And in the third part of the Homily for Rogation week, we
have another very remarkable testimony on this subject. “ No-
‘‘ where,” saith the homily, “ can we more certainly search for the
“ knowledge of this will of God...... but in the holy Serip-
“ tures, for they be they that testify of him, saith our Saviour
ΟΡ <0 2 We see what vanity the school doctrine is
“ mixed with, for that In THIS worp they sought not the will
“ of God, but rather the will of reason, the trade of custom,
“THE PATH OF THE FATHERS, rue practice or THE
“ Cuurcu. Let us, therefore, read and revolve the holy Scrip-
“ ture both day and night,” &e.
Remarkable, also, is the testimony of our Ordination Services
in this matter.
In the Exhortation to priests at their Ordination, it is said,—
“ Seeing that you cannot by any other means compass the doing
“ of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation of man, but
“ with doctrine and exhortation taken out of the holy Scriptures,
“‘ and with a life agreeable to the same ; consider how studious
“ye ought to be in reading and learning the Scriptures, and in
“framing the manners both of yourselves and of them that
“ specially pertain unto you, according to the rule of the same
““ Seriptures.”
And they are asked this question,—
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 341
“ Are you persuaded, that the holy Scriptures contain suffi-
“ ciently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation
“through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined,
“ out of the said Scriptures, to struct the people committed to
“ your charge, and to teach nothing as required of necessity to
“ eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may
“ be concluded and proved by the Scripture ? ”
Now, had the framers of this Service held the views of our
opponents, it is impossible to suppose but that those views would
have been here recognized. Nay, I would ask, how can those
who hold such views conscientiously answer this question in the
affirmative ?
And the same question is repeated in the Service for the con-
secration of bishops, and is followed by another equally worthy
our notice. “ Will you, then,” adds the Archbishop, “ faith-
“fully exercise yourself in the same holy Scriptures, and call
“upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same ; so
“as you may be able by them to teach and exhort with whole-
“ some doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?”
Moreover, thus speaks the “ Apology,” according to the
translation sanctioned by the author.
“ Thus did the holy Fathers alway fight against the heretics
“‘ with none other force than with the holy Scriptures. St.
“ Augustine, when he disputed against Petilian, the Donatian
“ heretic, ‘ Let not these words,’ quoth he, ‘be heard between
“ us, I say, or, You say; let us rather speak in this wise, Thus
“ saith the Lord. THERE LET Us SEEK THE CHURCH, there let
“ us boult out the cause.’?”? (JeweEt’s Works, 1609. fol., Pt. 1.
“ch. 9. div. 1,2.) “We... refer all our controversies unto
“ the holy Scriptures, and report us to the self-same words which
“ we know were sealed by God himself, and in comparison of them
“ set little by all other things, whatsoever may be devised by men.”
(Pt. 1. ch. 10. div. J.) “We receive and embrace all the
** canonical Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament,
“ giving thanks to our God who hath raised up unto us that
“light which we might ever have before our eyes, lest either
“by the subtilty of man, or by the snares of the devil, we
342 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“should be carried away to errors and lies. Also we profess
“ that these be the heavenly voices whereby God hath opened
“ unto us his will, and that only in them man’s heart can have
* settled rest, that in them be abundantly and fully compre-
* hended all things whatsoever be needful for our health, as Ori-
“gen, Augustine, Chrysostome, and Cyrillus, have taught,
“that they be the very might and strength of God to attain
“to salvation,’ ‘that they be the foundations of the Prophets
“and Apostles,’ whereupon is built the Church of God; that
‘they be the very sure and infallible rule whereby may be tried
“ WHETHER THE CHURCH DO SWERVE OR ERR, AND WHEREUNTO
“ALL ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE OUGHT TO BE CALLED TO AC-
“ counT; and that against these Scriptures neither law nor ordi-
“nance, nor any custom, ought to be heard; no, though Paul
“ himself, or an angel from heaven, should come and teach the
“ contrary.” (Pt. 2. ch. 9. div. 1.) ‘“ We know well enough that
“ the same word which was opened by Christ and spread abroad
“by the Apostles, is sufficient both to our salvation, and also to
“uphold and maintain all truth, and to confound all manner of
“heresy. By THAT woRD ONLY we do condemn all sorts of the
*< old heretics... ... As for the Arians . .. . and shortly all
“them which have a wicked opinion either of God the Father,
“ or of Christ, or of the Holy Ghost, or of any other point of
“ Christian religion, for so much as they be confuted by the
“ gospel of Christ, we plainly pronounce them for detestable and
“damned persons.” (Pt. 3. ch. 1. div. 3.) “Finally, we in
“ God’s cause desire to stand to God?s only judgment.” [referring
to the Seriptures.} (Pt. 5. ch. 16. div. 7.) “King Agesilaus
“ did but fondly in this behalf, who when he had a determinate
“ answer made him of the opinion and will of mighty Jupiter,
“would afterward bring the whole matter before Apollo, to
“know whether he would allow thereof, as his father Jupiter
“had done, or no. But yet should we do much more fondly,
““ when we hear God himself eLainiy speak to us in his most holy
“ Scriptures, and MAY UNDERSTAND BY THEM HIS WILL AND
““ MEANING, if we would afterward, as though this were of none
“ effect, bring our whole cause to be tried by a Council, which
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 343
“ were nothing else but to ask whether men would allow as God
“ did, and whether men would confirm Gods commandments by
“ their authority. Why, I beseech you, except a Council will
* and command, shall not truth be truth, or God be God? If
“ Christ had meant to do so from the beginning, as that he
“ would preach or teach nothing without the Bishop’s consent,
“ but refer all his doctrine over to Annas and Caiaphas, where
“should now have been the Christian faith? or who at any
time should have heard the gospel taught? Peter verily,
“whom the Pope hath oftener in his mouth, and more reve-
“rently useth to speak of than he doth of Jesus Christ, did
“ boldly stand against the Holy Council, saying, ‘It is better
“ to obey God than men.’ And after that Paul had once en-
“ tirely embraced the gospel, and had received it, ‘not from
“ men, nor by man, but by the only will of God, he did not
“ take advice therein of flesh and blood,’ nor brought his case
“before his kinsmen and brethren, but went forthwith into
“ Arabia to preach God’s divine mysteries by God’s only autho-
cays (Pt. 6.-ch. 1: div..2, 3.)
“ Howsoever it be, the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ
“ dependeth not upon Councils, nor, as St. Paul saith, upon the
“ judgments of mortal creatures.” (Pt. 6. ch. 18. div. 1.) “ We
‘ have SEARCHED OUT OF THE HOLY BIBLE, WHICH WE ARE SURE
“ CANNOT DECEIVE US, ONE SURE FORM OF RELIGION, and have
“ returned again unto the primitive Church of the antient Fathers
“and Apostles, that is to say, to the ground and beginning
“ of things, unto the very foundations and headsprings of
* Christ’s Church.” (Pt. 6. concl.)
Such is the strong and clear testimony of “ the Apology of
the Church of England” on this matter. While it claims for
our Church agreement with the Primitive Church and the or-
thodox Fathers, it in the strongest terms insists upon Scripture
being considered the sole and entire divine Rule of faith and
practice.
From Nowell’s Catechism we have already quoted a passage
conclusive on the point.!
1 See pp. 336, 337 above.
844. DOCTRINE ΟΕ CHURCH OF ENGLAND
There is, however, one more testimony to which I would
direct the reader’s attention on this head, and that is a remark-
ably clear disclaimer of the doctrme under consideration in the
* Reformatio Legum Eccles.” It occurs in Tit. 1, chap. 15,
entitled, ‘“ What is the authority of the holy Fathers?” and is
as follows,—‘ Lastly, we consider that the authority of the
‘‘ orthodox Fathers is by no means to be despised; for they
““ have many excellent and useful observations. Bur THAT THE
“ HOLY SCRIPTURES SHOULD BE INTERPRETED BY THEIR DECI-
““ SIONS WE DO NoT ALLOW. For THE HOLY SCRIPTURES OUGHT
“09 BE TO US BOTH THE RULES AND JUDGES OF ALL CHRISTIAN
“ poctrinse. Nay, moreover, the Fathers themselves refused to
“ be so honoured, frequently admonishing the reader, that he should
* only admit their determinations and interpretations as far as he
<< should see that they were agreeable to the holy Scriptures. Let
“ them, therefore, have their due respect and authority, but let
“it be one which yields, and is in subjection, to the determina-
tions, the truth, and authority of the sacred books.” }
A more pointed disclaimer of the doctrine maintained by our
opponents could hardly be penned.
Moreover, we have evidence that this principle was acted upon
vy our Reformers. Thus, in the conference held at Westminster
between the Romish and the Protestant party in the first year of
Queen Elizabeth, after an harangue from Dr. Cole in behalf of
the Romanists, it is said, ‘then the other part was licensed to
“‘ show their minds, which they did according to the first order,
“ exhibiting all that which they meant to propound in a book
“written, which, after a prayer and invocation made most
“humbly to Almighty God, for enduing of them with his Hely
““ Spirit, and a protestation also to stand to the doctrine of the
1 «Orthodoxorum Patrum etiam authoritatem minime censemus esse contem-
nendam. Sunt enim permulta ab illis preclare et utiliter dicta. Ut tamen ex
eorum sententia de sacris literis judicetur, non admittimus. Debent enim sacre
Ntere nobis omnis Christianz doctrine et regule esse et judices. Quin et ipsi
Patres tantum honoris sibi deferri recusarunt, szpius admonentes lectorem, ut
tantisper suas admittat sententias et interpretationes, quoad cum sacris literis
consentire eas animadverterit. Maneat ergo illis suaauthoritas et reverentia, sed
que sacrorum librorum sententiz veritati atque authoritati cedat et subjiciatur.”
(Tit. i. c. 15. Cardwell’s ed. Oxf. 1850.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 340
“ Catholic Church, BUILDED UPON THE SCRIPTURES AND THE
“ DOCTRINE OF THE PROPHETS AND THE APOSTLES, was dis-
“ tinctly read,” &e.1
And so, in an address to the Convocation of 1572, by Arch-
bishop Parker, we find that venerable prelate thus speaking ;—
After alluding to those monuments of the antient British
Church which remain to us, and which he says had been
“partly destroyed by Antichrist,’ (ab Antichristo partim
deleta,) he adds; “ But if divine Providence had not pre-
ἐκ served to us those monuments, which ought to be so much
“ dearer to us as they are peculiarly our own, but had per-
“ mitted them to be utterly destroyed and taken away from the
“memory of man, yet there remained the fountains themselves
“ of all divine knowledge, (totius divine scientiz,) preserved by
“the grace of the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew and Greek
“Janguage, to which, after the streams had been so long
“ polluted and perturbed, recurrence would be necessary to
“ have any certain knowledge of the divine will.... [and then,
“ having quoted the passages from Cyprian’s Epistle to Pom-
“ peius, and Basil’s or rather Gregory Nyssen’s Letter to Eusta-
“ thius, given above, pp. 6(0—62, and 143, 144, he adds,] By the
“ authorities of these holy Fathers we are admonished, that as
‘* often as we shall have declined from the holy and immaculate
** paths of the Lord, through human carelessness and blindness,
“ to return to them again, it is necessary that the holy Scriptures,
** which bear witness on the point, be searched, and those most
“ antient testimonies be examined, from which, as Cyprian
“ witnesses, the spring and fountain head of our religion
“arose. By firmly adhering to these testimonies of divine and
“ holy antiquity, we may be certain respecting the true worship of
“ God and religion, and be safe, although the monuments of
“ human things and ordinances, consumed by the rust of time, may
“ have perished. For, these eternal and inviolable fountains are
* to be assiduously sought day and night ; and, by water flow-
“ing and derived from these fountains, our wells, which our
“ enemies the Philistines have foully polluted, are to be purified,
“that they may be filled from these fountains of salvation,
1 Concil. Britann. ed. Wilkins. iv. 192.
346 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ whence we may draw eternal life. This subject supples me
“ with large materials, if I were inclined to dwell upon it, to
““ set before you by what arts Antichrist’ has cunningly deceived
“us,” &e. &e.?
Further; there are in the Articles two particular instances in
which the doctrine of our Church in this matter is very clearly
shown. The first is in its language respecting the Creeds ;
the second in its doctrine respecting the decisions of General
Councils. What can have a better claim to be considered as
the offsprmg of what is called Catholic Consent, and conse-
quently to all the authority which can be hence derived, than
the Apostolical and Nicene Creeds? But does our Church
receive them on the ground of any supposed authority ?
Nothing of the kind. The Article distinctly says, “The three
“ Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which
“is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be
“ received and believed ; For, they may be proved by most certain
“ warrants of holy Scripture.” (Art. 8.) And so in the “ Reform.
leg. eccl.” it is said, “ We receive and embrace those three
“ Creeds, BECAUSE they may easily be proved by the strongest
* testimonies of the divine and canonical Scriptures.” (ista tria
Symbola....recipimus et amplectimur, quod firmissimis divina-
rum et canonicarum Scripturarum testimoniis facile probari
possint.) (tit. i. 6. 5.) And on this ground Bishop Pearson
distinctly places our reception of the Apostles’ Creed.*
The force of this argument will, upon consideration, be found
1 There was no hesitation then in applying this term to Rome. Thus, in reply
to some objections to the use of the sacerdotal habit in 1564, the determination
“subscribed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by the Bishops of London, Win-
chester, and Ely, by Dr. Robinson, chaplain to Parker, and afterwards Bishop of
Bangor, by Bickley, another of the Archbishop’s chaplains, afterwards Bishop of
Chichester, and one Hill, and two other divines,” is as follows,—“ Ministri in
Ecclesia Anglicana, in qua Dei beneficio pura Christi doctrina et fidei Evangelice
preedicatio jam viget, queque manifestam detestationem Antichristianismi publice
profitetur, sine impietate uti possunt vestium discrimine publica authoritate jam
preescripto, tum in administratione sacra, tum in usu externo, modo omnis cultus
et necessitatis opinio amoveatur.” See Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p.498. And
Bishop Patrick says, that the opinion that the Pope is Antichrist, is “the common
opinion of all [Protestants], some few excepted ;” and he proceeds to vindicate it.
Answ. to Touchstone, pp. 86, et seq.
* Concil. Britann. ed. Wilkins. iv. 271.
® See his Exposition of it.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 347
peculiarly strong. For, there is no “ tradition” of the early
Church so well authenticated, so likely to be a really Catholic
tradition, as the Nicene Creed. If, then, our Church receives
even this, only because she believes that its declarations may be
proved by Scripture, @ fortiori, she gives no better entertain-
ment to any other “ tradition.” In a word, with Augustine, she
repudiates altogether the notion of any intrinsic authority
belonging to it.
Again ; whence can we form a better judgment of the views
of the Primitive Church, than from the decrees of the early
General Councils ? But does our Church hold that those decrees
are, in themselves and intrinsically, of authority, binding the
consciences of men? On the contrary, our Church expressly
declares,—“ General Councils may not be gathered together,
“ without the commandment and will of princes. And when
“ they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly
“ of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of
“ God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things
““ pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as neces-
“ sary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it
“ may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”
(Art. 21.)
And hence the Act of 1 Elizabeth, ec. 1. in which the decrees
of the first four Councils were placed as limits to the High Com-
mission Court for judging heresy, is thus cautiously worded,—
It is provided by it, that nothing shall be considered heresy,
but what has been adjudged to be so “ by the authority of the
“ canonical Scriptures, or by [not, by the authority of,| the
** first four General Councils,” &c.
So in the “ Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum,” it is said,—
“ Moreover, although we willingly give great honor to Councils,
“« especially General Councils, yet we consider that they are all
“ of them to be placed far below the dignity of the canonical
* Scriptures. And, moreover, we make a great difference
“ between the Councils themselves. For, some of them, such
“ as those four principal, the Nicene, the first of Constantinople,
“the Ephesine and the Chaleedonian, we embrace and accept
“with great reverence. And we have the same opinion of
348 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“many others which were afterwards held, in which we see
“ and confess that the most holy Fathers ordained many things
“ with great judgment and piety, agreeably to the divine Scriptures,
“ concerning the blessed and most high Trinity, concerning
“ Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, and the redemption of
“man procured by him. Nevertheless, we consider that our
“ faith is no otherwise bound to them, than so far as they can
“ be confirmed from the holy Scriptures. (Quibus tamen non
“ aliter fidem nostram obligandam esse censemus, nisi quatenus
“ ex Seripturis Sanctis confirmari possint.) For it is mani-
“ fest, that some Councils have sometimes erred, and decreed
“ contrary to each other; partly in legal causes, partly also in
“ the faith. Therefore let the Councils be read with honor and
““ Christian respect, but meanwhile /etthem be examined by the holy,
“ certain, and right rule of the Scriptures (ad Scripturarum piam,
“ certam, rectamque regulam examinentur.)” (Tit. 1. ο. 14.)
Hence both Bishop Burnet and Bishop Tomline repudiate the
notion of our Church considering herself bound by the authority
of the decrees of any Councils. “ For the four General Councils,”
says Bishop Burnet, “ which this Church declares she receives,
“ they are received only because we are persuaded from the Scrip-
“ tures, that their decisions are made according to them: That the
“ Son is truly God, &c. .... these truths we find in the Serip-
“ tures; and therefore we believe them. We reverence those
“ Councils for the sake of their doctrine; but do not believe
“‘ the doctrine for the authority of the Councils.” (Expos. Art.
21.) To the same effect, also, speaks Bishop Tomline. So,
also, in the Treatise on the Authority of Councils, by Dr. Clagett
and Mr. Hutchinson, inserted by Bishop Gibson in his “ Pre-
servative,” it is said :—‘* Our Church has a reverent esteem for
“« the four first General Councils; we embrace their confessions
“ of faith ; and whatsoever they defined to be heresy, we judge
“to beso. If it be demanded why we approve of them, and not
“ of all the rest, we answer, Because their determinations in matters
“ of faith, are manifestly warranted by the holy Scriptures.” }
And that such is the doctrine of our Church, is made a charge
against her by the Romanists. Thus speaks the able Roman
1 Gipson’s Preserv. vol. i. tit. iv. c. 2. p. 141.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 349
Catholic writer, Abraham Woodhead, than whom no one was
better versed in the writings of our divines ; “The Church of
“ England, indeed, professeth her assent to the definitions of
“ the first four General Councils .... but you may observe that
“this assent is not yielded to those Councils because lawfully
“ general, and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the
“yight defining and delivery of all necessary faith .... but
“ because the matter defined by them—the Church of England
“ being for herself judge hereof —ought to be assented to, as being
“ agreeable to the Scripture ; and the assent is not yielded for
“ the authority defining, as infallibly assisted in necessaries, but
“ for the appearing evidence in Scripture of the thing defined,
“ or at least for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary ; the
“ assent not yielded, because that particular persons or Churches
“are to take that for the true sense of Scripture which these
“ Councils may possibly give of it, but because those Councils gave
“ in their definitions that sense of Scripture which such particular
*« persons or Churches judge the true; so that the reason which
“ they give for their assent to these General Councils, obligeth
“ as much their assent to them, had they been Provincial ....
“ To this purpose, see the 21st Art. of the Church of England,
“« «General Councils may err,’ &c. See the Acts of Parliament
“1 Elizabeth, c.1. [and then adding quotations from Dr. Fern,
“ Archbishop Laud, Dr. Field, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Chilling-
“ worth, Archbishop Potter, Dr. Whitby, and Bishop Stillingfleet,
“ headds,] From these quotations, I think, it appears, that what-
“ ever fair professions are made, yet no assent is given by them
“ to the first four Councils on this account, that they could not
“ err in their definitions, nor yet because they are their sovereign
“ judge, from whose sentence they may not dissent, if they be
“ persuaded that it is repugnant to the Scriptures.” !
That our Church receives the decrees of the first four General
Councils, I willingly allow; though, while I am upon the sub-
ject, I would offer a remark on the grounds on which such a
position may be maintained, as I am not sure that those upon
which it is commonly placed, are sufficient.
1 A Rational Account of the doctrine of Roman Catholics concerning the eccle-
siastical Guide in controversies of religion by R. H. [i. 6. Abraham Woodhead ]
2nd edit. 1673, pp. 174—9.
350 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
In the Act of 1 Elizabeth, c. 1, it was provided, that judges
ecclesiastical “shall not in anywise have authority or power to
“ order, determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be heresie,
“ but only such as have heretofore been determined, ordered, or
“ adjudged to be heresie, by the authority of the Canonical Scrip-
“ tures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them,
“ or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared
“ heresie by the express and plain words of the said Canonical
“ Scriptures ; or such as hereafter shall be ordered, judged, or
“ determined to be heresie, by the High Court of Parliament of
“ this realm, with the assent of the clergy in their Convocation.”!
On which Hooker observes, that “ the credit which those four
“ General Councils have throughout all Churches evermore had,
*‘ was judged by the makers of the foresaid Act, a just cause
“‘ wherefore they should be mentioned in that case as a requisite
“ part of the rule wherewith dominion was to be limited.”’* And
the clause, though merely restrictive, certainly shows, that the
decrees of the first four General Councils on the subject of heresy,
were received by our Reformed Church ; and clearly enabled
those to whom the Act referred, to pronounce anything to be
heresy, which had been defined to be so by any one of those Four
Councils. And “ the ground,” says Bishop Gibson, “ of making
“this limitation, was a retrospect to the times of Popery, m
“‘ which everything was adjudged heresie, that the Church of
“ Rome thought fit to call by that name; how far soever in its
“* own nature from being fundamental, and how contrary soever
“to the Gospel, and the antient doctrine of the Catholic
τ Chareh.?*
But as this Act was repealed in 1640, and that part of the
Act relating to the High Commission Court containing this
clause, never re-enacted, this clause has, of course, no power at
the present time. It related only to the Court of High Com-
mission, whose proceedings were to be regulated by it.
Still, it no doubt shows the sense of Parliament on the sub-
ject at the period when it was enacted ; and hence it is said by
Lord Coke, “ Albeit this provisoe extendeth only to the High
1 Grpson’s Codex, p. 48 and 352. 2. Hooker's Ecel. Pol. Book 8. ο. 2.
3 Grpson’s Codex, p. 352.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 901
“ Commissioners ; yet seeing, in the High Commission there
“be so many bishops and other divines and learned men, it
“may serve for a good direction to others, especially to the
“ diocesan, being a sole judge in so weighty a cause.”* And it
is on that account, I suppose, that it is said in 1 Hawkins 4,
quoted in Burn’s Eccl. Law, vol. 2, Art. Heresy, that it “ hath
been generally holden” that “ these rules [i. 6. those in 1 Eliz.
«ς, 1.] will be good directions to Ecclesiastical Courts in rela-
“ tion to heresy.”
There is but one other reference, as far as I am aware, in any
public document of our Reformed Church to the early Councils,
and that is in the Canons of 1640; in which it is said, that
Socinianism is “a complication of many antient heresies, con-
“ demned by the first four General Councils, and contrariant to
“ the Articles of religion now established in the Church of Eng-
“land.” This reference, again, is, to a certain extent, evidence
that the decrees of those Councils were received by our Church ;
but nothing more. And, as we have already observed,” the
Canons of 1640 are of no force.?
It must be admitted, then, that these are but very indirect
and inadequate authorities for any bishop or ecclesiastical court
to act upon ; and I suspect that a safer ground in any matter of
legal cognizance, would be the Act of 25 Hen. νι]. c. 19,
quoted above.*
That Act, as we have seen, allowed such canons of the
English Church, already made, as were not repugnant to the
laws, &c. to remain in force. Among these were the following,
passed in the National Council of Chalchythe in 785. This
Council was assembled by the legates of Pope Adrian, who, in
an account of the Council sent to the Pope, give the Canons
they proposed ; and which they say the King and all the clergy
nobles and people, bound themselves faithfully to observe.
The first of these is as follows,—* That the holy and inviolate
“ faith of the Nicene Council be faithfully and firmly held by
1 3 Inst. 4. See Greson’s Codex, i. 351.
2 See note, p. 334 above.
3 See Grpson’s Codex, and STILLINGFLEET’S Cases.
* See note, p. 334 above.
352 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
* all who are devoted to the holy service ; and that every year
“in the Synodal meetings the priests of every Church, who
“ ought to instruct the people, be very diligently examined by
“the bishops concerning the faith, so that they may in all
** things confess, hold, and preach the Apostolical Catholic faith
“ of the Six Synods, which is approved by the Holy Ghost, as it is
* delivered to us by the holy Roman Church ; and if there be
“ occasion, not fear to die for it; and that they receive all such
“ men as the holy General Councils have received, and heartily
“ reject and condemn all whom they have condemned.” And in
the fourth occurs the following passage,—‘‘ Wherefore we advise
* that the Synodal edicts of the six General Councils, together
“* with the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, be often read, and be
“observed; and that the state of the Church be reformed,
* according to their pattern ; so that nothing new be allowed to
* be introduced by any, that there be no schism in the Church
“of God.”! The Synodal edicts, therefore, of what are called
the first six General Councils, are considered to have thus become
“the Code of the English Church ;”? and, no doubt, such was
the case in the times of Popery ;—and so far as their decrees
and canons are not repugnant to the legally acknowledged doc-
trine and laws of our Church, so far they may be considered in
force still in the English Church.
The decrees and canons of the first four General Councils
were, also, made by Justinian part of the civil code ;? and the
Civil Law was, as is well known, received and practised to a
considerable extent in this country.
These four Councils are also put forward in the Common
Canon Law, as deserving particular reverence;* though, of
course, not as the only ones to be obeyed.
1 Concil. Britann. ed. Wilkins. i. 146, 7.
3 JoHnson’s Clergyman’s Vade Mecum, Pt. 2. Pref. p. exii.
3 Thus speaks that Code,— Sancimus igitur vicem legum obtinere sanctas
Ecclesiasticas regulas que a sanctis quatuor Conciliis exposite sunt aut firmate,
hoc est in Niceena trecentorum decem et octo, et in Constantinopolitana sanctorum
centum quinquaginta Patrum, et in Ephesina prima in qua Nestorius est dam-
natus, et in Chalcedonia in qua Eutyches cum Nestorio anathematizatus est.
Predictarum enim quatuor synodorum dogmata sicut sanctas Scripturas acci-
pimus, et regulas sicut leges observamus.” Justin. Novell. 131. c. 1.
* Thus, in the Decree of Gratian it is said,—* Inter cetera autem Concilia
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. B00
And to these directions of the Common Canon Law, our own
Lyndwood refers, in his “ Provinciale,” in the followmg words:—
Speaking of the Council of Chalcedon, he says,— Such General
“Councils represent the Universal Church, which is called
““ Catholic. See 15th Dist. throughout ; where, in the chapter
“commencing Sancta Romana, are enumerated the Councils
“and works which are received throughout the Church. Of the
“ approved Councils, also, some remarks are made in the 16th
“ Dist. in the chapter commencing Sezta Synodus, and in a
** manner throughout.” !
These remarks of Lyndwood seem clearly to show, that the
directions of the Common Canon Law respecting General Coun-
cils were received here ; and no doubt, in matters of faith, they
must have been considered as obligatory, on account of the
sanction given to the Common Canon Law by the Pope. But as
the canons of these Councils, with the exception of the first six, are
nowhere recognised by our own domestic Canon Law, (excepting,
perhaps, in some particulars legalized by Act of Parliament or
custom,) they had no intrinsic authority here even before the
Reformation.
The decrees and canons of the first six Councils, then, (of
which however only the first four issued Canons) having been
received by our own Church, are allowed by the 25 Hen. vii.
c. 19, so far as they are not repugnant to the laws of the realm,
which have established the Articles, Homilies, &c. as the doc-
trine of the Church of England.
Further, let us observe the terms in which heresy is spoken of
in various ecclesiastical documents, affording evidence, more or
less important, of the doctrine of our Church.
quatuor esse scimus venerabiles Synodos qu totam principaliter fidem complec-
tuntur, quasi quatuor Evangelia, vel totidem Paradisi flumina;” and having
enumerated the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, Ephesine, and Chalcedonian, it pro-
ceeds,—“ Hz sunt quatuor Synodi principales, fidei doctrinam plenissime predi-
cantes. Sed et si qua sunt alia Concilia que sancti Patres Spiritu Dei pleni
sanxerunt, post istorum quatuor authoritatem omni manent stabilita vigore,
quorum gestain hoc opere condita continentur.” Dist. 15. ¢. 1.
! «Talia concilia generalia representant universalem Ecclesiam que dicitur
Catholica. 15. Di. per totum, ubi in ὁ. Sancta Romana recitantur Concilia et
etiam opuscula que admittuntur per Ecclesiam. De conciliis quoque approbatis
habetur 16. Di. c. Sexta Synodus et quasi per totum.” Lynpw. Provine. lib. v.
tit. 4.c. Reverendissime verb. per ecclesiam. p. 284. ed. 1679.
VOL. III. A A
954. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
In Archbishop Cranmer’s “ Articles to be inquired of in the
Visitations to be had within the diocese of Canterbury” in 1547,
the question on this matter is, “ Whether any have wilfully
“ maintained and defended any heresies, errors, or false opinions
“ contrary to the faith of Christ and holy Scripture.” The same
is repeated verbatim in the Visitation Articles in the first year of
Queen Elizabeth.2 So in Archbishop Parker’s Metropolitical
Visitation Articles a. 1567, one is, “ You shall inquire of the
“ doctrine and judgment of all and singular, head and members
“ of your Church.... whether any of them do either privily or
‘* openly preach or teach any unwholesome, erroneous, seditious
doctrine, or discourage any man from the reading of the holy
“ Scriptures soberly, for his edifying, or, &c.... [enumerating
* several errors, and then concluding], or any other errors or
“ false doctrine, contrary to the faith of Christ and holy Scrip-
gues 28
And so in the Service for the ordination of priests, it is asked,
« Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and
“ drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to
“ God’s word 2” and in that for the consecration of bishops, “ Be
“you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive
* away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God’s
“ word, and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage
ἐς others to the same ?”
And in the “ Reformatio legum eccles.” the definition of
heresy is as follows, —“‘ We ordain that all those are to be
* accounted heretics, who hold any doctrine of our common
* faith, otherwise than is determined in holy Scripture, and so
persist in their error, that they will not suffer themselves
* to be driven from it.”’ +
And what says one who looked at this matter merely with the
eye of a lawyer, weighing the evidence upon which it would be
legally determined? “It seemeth, that among Protestants,
“heresy is taken to be a false opinion, repugnant to some
“ point of doctrine clearly revealed in Scripture, and either
1 Concil. Britann. ed. Wilk. iv. 25.
2 Th. iv. 190. 3 Th. iv. 253. cold yy 9. δ. 1.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 300
“ absolutely essential to the Christian faith, or at least of most
“ high importance.”!
Not one word is to be found in any public document of our
Church, intimating that Catholic Consent is the authoritative
interpreter of Scripture, or a part of the Rule of faith; which,
had our Church held it to be so, must necessarily have been
mentioned in the places quoted above. The determination of
heresy and error, according to our Church, rests upon the
authority of Scripture, and Scripture only. And the authorized
guides in our Church for the interpretation of Scripture, and by
which, of course, her members must be judged, are those above
described ;? among which are to be found the three Creeds,
received because they “‘ may be proved by most certain warrants
of holy Scripture ;” and the first six Councils, so far as they are
not contrary to the doctrines legally established; and of these,
particularly the first four, on account of the recognition given
them in the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 1; but none of them on the ground
of any intrinsic authority. (Art. 21.)
And hence these received guides are occasionally joined with
the Scriptures as the tests of error and heresy in our Church.
Thus, in Archbishop Parker’s Metropolitical Articles of 1569,
the inquiry is, “ Whether there be in your parishes.... any
* suspected of heresy, or that maintain any erroneous opinions
“contrary to the laws of Almighty God and good religion, by
“ public authority in this realm set forth.’ * And so, in the Act
of 1 Eliz. c. 1, and the Canons of 1640, the decrees of the first
four General Councils are referred to as tests. And in the
Directions to the archbishops and bishops by William IIL., a.
1695, (Tenison archbishop,) it is ordered, “ That no preacher
“ whatsoever in his sermon or lecture, do presume to deliver any
“other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity, than what is
“ contained in the holy Scriptures, and is agreeable to the three
Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles of religion ;”* a direction
which was repeated in the same words by George I. in 1714,
and again in 1721.
1 Hawkrns’s Pleas of the Crown, title Heresy, quoted by Burn.
2. See pp. 332 et seq. above. 3 Concil. Britann. ed. Wilkins. iv. 259.
4 Ib. iv. 625. 5 Th. 666,
A AP
356 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
It does not appear, however, that Church-Tradition or Catholic
Consent has ever been in any way or degree recognized by our
Church. And the only notice taken by her of the writings of
the Fathers (except the Creeds and the first four Councils) is
in the requirement contained in the (unauthoritative) Canon of
1571; the propriety of which, especially when issued, scarcely
any one probably would call in question.
In short, the doctrine of our Church on this point is very well
described in a document of the early date of 1539,—which I do
not quote as authority, because it is not known by whom it was
drawn up, but which probably did not proceed from a common
hand, as it is preserved in the State Paper Office,—entitled,
“ A Declaration of the faith, and a justification of the proceed-
“ines, of King Henry the Highth im matters of religion, or a
“ summary declaration of the faith, uses, and observations in
“ England,” in which the fourth paragraph runs thus,—
“ Englishmen styk fast to the doctrine of God in the New Testa-
« ment, and in the Old, conformeable to the New; and do esteeme
“ that it is, Fons aque salientis in vitam eternam ; also they do
“ accept the holy councills and doctors, where they be not con-
“ trary, but conformeable unto the same doctrine.” ἢ
Hence, then, we may see the true via media held by our
Church in this matter, between the Romanists on one hand,
and the despisers of Antiquity on the other.
The doctrines which we receive, we believe on the authority
of Scripture, and Scripture only ; while we at the same time
assert, that, from the records of Antiquity which remain to us,
we have every reason to suppose, that these were the doctrines
of the Primitive Orthodox Church. And we maintain, further,
that a doctrine, though professedly derived from Scripture, pre-
tending to be vitally important, which can find no support in
the records that remain to us of the Orthodox Primitive Church,
is open to very strong suspicion. Nay more, considering the
extent and nature of the writings that remain to us of the first
four or five centuries, we may safely maintain, (and it is a useful
practical check upon novel extravagances to maintain, with the
Canon of 1571,) that no doctrine ought to be admitted as an
See Cotirer’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 11, Records, No. 47.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WURK. 907
important doctrine of religion, that cannot find some support in
the writings of the Catholic Fathers of the first five centuries.
But this is maintained (as we have already observed) not on any
theoretical view of the impossibility of these writings neglecting
to set forth any important doctrine, or being worded so as to
appear to countenance any error, but as a practical direction
arising from an inspection of them, and a belief that the orthodox
faith is to be found in them : as it is expressed by Dr. Water-
land, in a passage already quoted :—“ The Protestants,” he says,
“ having well studied the Fathers, were now willing to rest their
“cause not upon Scripture only, but Fathers too.”! And
the same view is taken in other passages, which we shall quote
presently. 3
In arguing, then, with opponents of our Church on funda-
mental points, in the explanation of which we differ, after having
pressed them with arguments derived from Scripture, our only
authority and Rule of faith, we add confirmations of our views
from the records of the Primitive Church ; offering them to the
Romanists as, upon their own principles, conclusive in our favor,
and to others, as arguments in support of them, of a very strong
character.
To the Romanists, when they accuse us of paying no regard
to Antiquity, we say,—Show us any vital doctrine established by
even probable consent of the Primitive Church which we do not
receive, or any which we do receive, unsupported by the records
of that Church. Our creed is precisely that of the Primitive
Church, as far as it can be ascertained. True, we take it from
the Scriptures, and rest it upon the authority of the Scriptures
only, but we look with great respect to the records of the Primi-
tive Church, and value highly their confirmation of our views ;
and we think it a good argument against various doctrines of
yours, that they are utterly destitute of support in the records
of the Primitive Church ; and in the conviction that they are al-
together destitute of Scripture-proof, and many of them opposed
to Scripture, we at once reject them ; all of them as having no
sufficient authority to rest upon, and some as anti-christian.
Moreover, the same ground is taken by our Church (as the
1 See above, vol. i. p. 215. 2 See pp. 359, 360 below.
308 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
preceding extracts show) with respect to the fundamentals of
practice ; on which point we have already had occasion to make
some remarks,! and therefore add nothing here.
To those sectaries who may suspect us of putting forward the
statements of Fathers and early Councils as part of the divine
Rule of faith or practice, because we profess to agree with them,
and point to them in confirmation of the truth of our doctrines
and the propriety of some of our observances, we reply,—We
do no such thing; Scripture is with us the sole and complete
authoritative Rule of faith, and sole divine Rule of practice ; we
receive even the antient Creeds only because they may be “ proved
by most certain warrants of holy Scripture ;” we regard the tes-
timony of Fathers and early Councils only as a confirmation of
the truth of our doctrines, or the propriety of our observances,
though obviously a very important confirmation ; and we affirm,
that any doctrine, though professedly derived from Scripture,
pretending to be a vital point, which can get no confirmation
from the writings of the Primitive Church, is open to very strong
suspicion ; and further, (considering the nature and extent of
the writings of the first four or five centuries,) we hold practi-
cally, that any doctrine which has no support in them is not to
be admitted as a vital point.
We are, therefore, attacked by the one party for not admitting
the authority of the Primitive Church as supreme, and by the
other for paying it any respect at all.
When, therefore, in reasoning with the Romanists, our divines
may seem to refer to the testimony of Antiquity as settling the
point in dispute with authority and beyond appeal, so far as
that testimony appears to be used as an authoritative argument,
and one that binds the conscience, and demands faith, so far is the
argument an argumentum ad hominem; it is meeting the Romanist
on his own principles, and fighting the battle with him on ground
chosen by himself; and, considering the strength of the Pro-
testant cause, it is ground which may be occupied without
fear.
To show that I am not speaking without authority when I
say this, I will give some quotations from works written by our
1 See above, vol. 11. pp. 201—205.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 359
divines when engaged in such a controversy, to prove the truth
of it.
Thus speaks one of the writers to whom Bishop Gibson has
assigned a place in his great work against Popery. ‘ Though
“ the Scripture be our only Rule of faith and doctrine necessary
“to be believed by us, because swe know of no other revelation
“ but that, and nothing but revelation makes any doctrine neces-
“ sary to be believed, yet we are very willing to take the sense
“and meaning of Scripture both from itself and from the Pri-
“ mitive Church too.” ....“ Here is a very large scope offered
“to me, and what has taken up a great many volumes on both
“ sides ; so that to most people Scripture one would think should
“be a shorter and an easier, and therefore a better, way to know
** the true Church by; but sINCE OUR ADVERSARIES ARE NOT
“ WILLING TO LEAVE THE CAUSE TO THAT, we are ready to accept
* of the Primitive Church to be judge between us; and as has
“ been often offered before by Bishop Jewel and others, we shall
“ be very willing to stand to its awardand decision. For, how-
κε ever some few divines of the Reformation, before they were so
* well acquainted with Antiquity, and when they could not so
* well distinguish what was genuine from what was spurious
“and corrupted by your Church, were, at first especially, more
“ jealous and distrustful than they need to have been of it, and
“ unwilling to venture their cause to any other sentence but that
“ of Scripture, which had so plainly decided for them, and was
“INDEED THE MOST PROPER TO BE APPEALED TO; yet the
“* greatest number and the most learned of the Protestant writers
“« have never declined the judgment of the Primitive Church,
““ but next to the inspired writings of the Apostles have always
“* esteemed and been willing to be determined by it. And we are
“ well assured that the Antient Church, even the Roman itself,
“ as wellas the whole Christian besides, is, in all material points,
“ on the Protestant side.’—* When we produce Scripture against
* our adversaries, we then produce the only authentic records of the
““ Apostolic Church, and the only certain account we have of the
«¢ faith and doctrine of the most Primitive Church. Let them
“ object therefore never so much against Scripture as a Rule of
“ faith, yet whilst it contains THE ONLY sURE TESTIMONY of
360 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ what was taught and believed by the first Christian Church,
“ so far as any of these doctrines are not in Scripture, so far they
“ cannot appear to be the doctrine of the Apostolic Church ;
“ and whilst we hold all that faith and all those doctrines that
“ are contained in Scripture, we hold all that can be known to
“ be so in the most pure and most primitive Church ; and what-
ἐς soever they have added to Scripture, which they will needs
“ have to be but an imperfect Rule of faith, they have added, so
« far as can be known, to the doctrine of the Apostolic Church.
“ For if Scripture be not the only rule of that [i.e. the doctrine
“ of the Apostolic Church], yet it is the only historical account
** we have of it.””}
And so Bishop Stillingfleet, in his examination of the Council
of Trent, says,—“ The urmost use I can suppose, then, Vin-
“ centius his rules can be of to us now is in that case which he
“ puts when corruptions and errors have had time to take root
‘ and fasten themselves, and that is, By an appeal to Scripture
“ and antient Councils. But BECAUSE OF THE CHARGE OF INNO-
“VATION against us, we are content to be tried by his second
“ rule, by the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation,” &e. 3
And thus is the same sentiment briefly and pithily expressed
by Dr. Sherman, ina work which has the high recommendation
of Bishop Hall affixed to it. His Roman Catholic adversary
says,— Your doctors would fain dispute out of Scripture only.”
To which Dr. S. replies, —“If only be taken in order to the
“ ultimate resolution of faith, we would indeed dispute out of
“ Scripture only, because the principles of Scripture are only to
“ ys infallible, but if only be taken exclusively to all use of the
“ Fathers, we deny it. To show that our doctrine is truly divine,
“we prove it out of Scripture: to show that it is not new, we
“ compare it with the sayings of the Fathers ; yea, the judgment
“ of the Fathers hath itself to faith as a rational disposition, but
“ not as an inerrable determination ; this privilege we reserve to
“ Scripture, which is to us the formal object and ground of
““ divine faith.” ὃ
1 Bellarmine’s Notes of the Church examined, &c. by Dr. SHERLOCK and
others, in Bishop Gibson’s Preservative, tit. iii. c. 2. pp. 104—7%.
2 ΒΡ. STILLINGFLEET’s Council of Trent examined, &e. p. 24.
3 Account of faith, ἄς. by J. S [herman]. 1661. pp. 633, 4.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 361
Other similar testimonies may be had in abundance.
To sum up all, then, in a few words, the position taken by
the Church of England with respect to the use to be made of
the writings of the Fathers appears to be this.
1. That the absence of any testimony in favor of a point
proposed as vitally important, in the writings that remain to us
of the Catholic Fathers of the first five or six centuries, (for here
we must take a somewhat lengthened period on account of the
paucity of the remains of the earliest Church,) is in itself, and
ought to be to all men, whatever their views may be, a very strong
argument against it ; and, on the contrary, that very general tes-
timony in favor of any vitally important point in those writings,
(always including here those of the first two or three centuries,)
is a very strong argument in favor of it.
Further 2. Our Church, holding that all vitally important
points are, in fact, contained and expressed in the writings of
those who are called the catholic doctors of the first few cen-
turies, has warned her ministers not to bring forward anything
as vitally important which does not find some support in those
writings.!
And 3. Conscious that the writings of those Fathers, and the
information we can gather from them as to the doctrines of the
Primitive Church, preponderate beyond comparison in her favor,
she is at all times ready to meet the Romanists, or any other
pseudo-catholics, on their own ground, and to let the Fathers
be judges between us.
It remains for us to see, what countenance our Church affords
to the notion of our possessing articles of revelation of minor
importance not contained at all in Scripture.
Our opponents contend, that the 6th Article speaks only of
points necessary to salvation. But its words seem not so limited.
It tells us, as we have just seen, that what is not read in Scrip-
ture, nor may be proved thereby, “is not to be required of any
1 This warning, however, it must be observed, is given only in a Canon of
the Upper House of Convocation, of no authority. But no doubt it is agreeable
to the spirit in which our Church and her great divines have upon the whole acted,
and is well founded, and not without its use.
362 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
man that it should be believed as an article of the faith.’ And
the attempt to explain this away, by understanding the phrase
“ the faith ” to mean only the fundamentals of the faith, and
to maintain that there are nevertheless articles of religious belief
to be held by us that are not in Scripture, is surely a mode of
dealing with the Article worthy only of censure and reprobation.
But however this may be, we have abundant other evidence.
Thus, the first homily says,—‘“ In holy Scripture is fully con-
“ tained what we ought fo do, and what to eschew, what to be-
** Tteve, what to love, and what to look for at God’s hands at
“length.” Nowadays,” says the Apology, “ the holy Scrip-
“ture is abroad, the writings of the Apostles and Prophets
“ are in print, whereby all truth and catholic doctrine may be
“proved, and all heresy may be disproved and confuted.”
(Pt. 1. ce. 8. div. 1.) And again; “ We profess... . that
“in them [1. 6. the Scriptures] be abundantly and fully com-
“ prehended all things whatsoever be needful for our health.’
(Pt. 2. c. 9. div. 1.) So Nowell’s Catechism. ‘We are ad-
“monished not to follow or seek for anything in religion
“ beyond what we are there [1. 6. in the Scripture] taught by
“ God.” Do you affirm, then, that all things necessary to piety
“ and salvation are contained in God’s written word? A. Cer-
“tainly, for it would be the part of intolerable impiety and
“ madness to think either that God had left an imperfect doc-
“ trine, or that men could complete what he had left imperfect.”
So that all the doctrine which “God has left” us, is contained
in the Scriptures. And so, finally, the “‘ Reformatio leg. eccl.;”
—“From the Scriptures alone the doctrines of religion and
faith ought to be made up (constare) and confirmed,” (tit. 1.
c. 6.) ; which is clearly saying, in other words, that Scripture
is the only source of all religious truth.
In reply to the fourth position, asserting the necessity of
Tradition on account of the obscurity of Scripture, even in the
fundamental articles, we may refer to the testimonies already
given on the second, particularly the following,—
“The humble man may search any truth boldly in the Scrip-
“ture, without any danger of error. And if he be ignorant,
“he ought the more to read and to search holy Scripture to
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 363
“ bring him out of ignorance.” (Hom.) “ We hear God him-
“ self PLAINLY speak to us in his most holy Scriptures, and
“ may understand by them his will and meaning.” (Apol.) Indeed,
all the testimonies there given, directly or indirectly negative
the position before us. We may add to them the following.
“ Although many things in Scripture be spoken in obscure
“‘ mysteries,” says the Homily on Holy Scripture, “ yet there is
“ nothing spoken under dark mysteries in one place, but the
“ self-same thing in other places is spoken more familiarly and
“ plainly, to the capacity both of learned and unlearned. And
“ those things in the Scripture that be plain to understand and
“ necessary for salvation, every man’s duty is to learn them, to
print them in memory, and effectually to exercise them. And
“ as for the dark mysteries, to be contented to be ignorant in
“them, until such time as it shall please God to open those
“ things unto him.”
And in direct opposition to Mr. Keble’s statement, that for
“ the catholic doctrine of the most holy Trinity, as contained
in the Nicene Creed,” we are indebted to “ the unwritten teach-
ing of the first age of the Church,” (see pp. 32 and 41,) the
homily says,—“ In these books [i. e. the Scriptures] we shall
“ find the Father from whom, the Son by whom, and the Holy
“ Ghost in whom, all things have their being and keeping up,
“ and these three persons to be but one God and one substance.”
And so, in the “ Declaration of certain principal Articles of
religion,” published in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and
required to be read by “all parsons, vicars, and curates,” twice
a-year, the second Article is, “I believe, also, whatsoever is
“ contained in the holy canonical Scriptures, in the which
“ Scriptures are contained all things necessary to salvation, by
“ the which, also, all errors and heresies may sufficiently be re-
“ proved and convicted, and all doctrine and articles necessary to
“ salvation established.” +
As it respects the fifth position,—that it is on the authority
of Church-Tradition that we must rest the canon and inspiration
of Scripture, and the genuineness of what we receive as such,—
it is sufficient to remark, that our Church gives not the smallest
1 Concil. Britann. ed. Wilk. iv. 195,
364 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
countenance to such a notion. If, indeed, the testimonies ad-
duced on the former points have (as we trust they have) shown,
that our Church does not admit the authority of Tradition, or
what is called Catholic Consent, as binding the conscience to
the belief of what it testifies, there needs no further proof, that
she does not consider herself bound to accept the Scriptures as
the word of God on that authority. The reception of these
books by the Primitive Church is of course a necessary and in-
dispensable part of the testimony upon which our reception of
them depends ; but that, not on the ground of any authority in
the witness so borne, such that it should of itself bind us to
belief in what it delivers, but because, had they doubted the
claims of any book to be inserted in the canon, the historical
evidence in its favor would have been imperfect and insufficient.
And hence it was, that our Church rejected from the Canon
several books which had been admitted into it by the Church of
Rome,
The doctrine of our Church upon this point, however, will
more fully appear in the testimonies which 1 am about to quote
respecting the whole subject from the writings of some of her
most eminent divines ; to which I now proceed. And the first
we have to notice is that of
BisHor JEWEL.
To find the name of this venerable Prelate and champion of
Protestantism, called by Hooker, “the worthiest divine that
“ Christendom hath bred for the space of some hundreds of
“ years,” 1 so made use of as it has been in Mr. Keble’s “Ca-
tena,” is not a little painful. The passages already quoted
from the “ Apology of the Church of»England,” written by
him, make any further reference to his works almost needless ;
but it may have its use to those who are unacquainted with his
sentiments.
The testimony quoted from him by Mr. Keble, is of course
his famous challenge to the Romanists, calling upon them to
point out any passage in any author of the first six centuries
who supported their views and customs on certain points, and
1 HooxKeEr’s Eccl. Pol. ii. 6.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 365
he would yield the question. For this, and this alone, Mr. Keble
quotes him as a defender of his system! He must be driven to
great straits to find witnesses to give his system a character. If
he had only read to the end of the sermon from which he has
quoted this challenge, he would have seen, that his witness
altogether fails him. For at the close of the sermon, after
quoting some passages from Ambrose, Cyprian, and Tertullian,
directing us to the holy Scriptures as our guide and Rule of
faith, he adds,—‘ O that our adversaries, and all they that stand
“in defence of the masse this day, would content themselves to
be judged by this rule! O THAT, IN ALL THE CONTROVERSIES
“ THAT LIE BETWEEN US AND THEM, THEY WOULD REMIT THE
“ JUDGMENT UNTO Gop’s worD! So should we soon agree and
join together. So should we deliver nothing unto the people but
“ that we have received at God’s hand.” And in his correspond-
ence with Dr. Cole respecting this very challenge, at the close
of his last letter he says,—‘‘O Master Doctor, let us lay aside
“all self-will and contention, and have recourse only unto the
“ truth that God hath revealed to us in his holy word. For thereby
* shall ye be able to know whether the Church do right or no.
“ And thereby shall ye be able to reform her if she happen to
* do amiss. .... Thus Christ reformed the errors of the Church
“in his time, brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees, and said
“ unto them, Scriptum est.... [and then, after having quoted
“ some passages from the Fathers as before, he adds] To con-
“ clude, like as the errors of the clock be revealed by the
“ constant course of the sun, even so the errors of the Church
“ are revealed by the everlasting and infallible word of God.” +
These passages clearly show, that he had no intention, when
making his challenge, of setting up the authority of the Fathers
as any part of the Rule of faith or supreme Judge of controver-
sies. But when the Romanists boasted of their Antiquity, to
drive them even from this plea, he challenges them to produce
any proof of it ; and to show the certainty of his conviction that
they could not do so, he offers to yield the cause to them, if they
were able to do so.
We will not, however, dismiss so able and venerable a witness
1 Jewew’s Works, ed. 1609. p. 44.
366 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
so hastily, especially as he has elsewhere still more plainly and
forcibly expressed his views on the points under discussion, as
we will now proceed to show.
As it respects, then, the first three of the positions maintained
by the Tractators, the following statements are, I suppose, suffi-
ciently decisive.
“‘ What shall a godly-disposed simple man do? How shall
“he settle himself ? To which side may he safely join himself?
“Τῇ he make reckoning of learning, there are learned men on
“both sides; if he make reckoning of virtue and godly life,
* there be virtuous men and of godly life on both sides; if he
“ make reckoning of zeal, either side is zealous in the religion
“ they hold; if he make reckoning of the name of the Church,
*‘ they take it as well to the one side as to the other ; if he make
“ reckoning of the multitude, there are many on either side,
* but neither side hath so many as hath the Turk. Whither,
“ then, may a man turn himself, and to which side may he safely
“join? In this case we find the comfort and profit of the word
“ of God. Inthis case St. Paul telleth us, ‘ Whatsoever things
“ are written aforetime are written for our learning,’ to lighten
“ our eyes, to resolve our doubts, and to guide our feet......
“ With this word Christ confounded the Scribes and Pharisees,
“and put them to silence. .... This word confounded the
« Arians and all sorts of heretics. What is become of Marcion,
“ of Nestorius? .... they are blown away as smoke before the
““ wind, the word of God hath confounded them, and beat them
“away. As Dagon fell, and broke his hands and neck, and
* could not stand in the presence of the ark of the Lord, even
* so shall all falsehood fall and hide itselfin the presence of the
“truth of God. As the rod of Moses devoured the rods of the
“ charmers, as the beams of the sun drive away and consume
“ darkness, so shall the word of God chase away errors......
“ They [1. e. “ the Scriptures] bring us to God; teach us the
* truth, and give us reason of all things; they keep us in safety,
“ suffer not wolves to devour us, keep off heretics, bewray a
“* thief, and make known who is Antichrist. .... And as the
“ word of God is the light to direct us, and to bewray errors, so
“is it also the standard and beam to try the weights of truth
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 367
‘* and falsehood. .... The master of the ship, when he is on
“ the main sea, casteth his eye always upon the load star, and
“so directeth and guideth his ways. Even so must we, which
“are passengers and strangers in this world, ever settle our
““ eyes to behold the word of God. So shall no tempest over-
* blow us, so shall we be guided without danger, so shall we
“ safely arrive in the haven of our rest .... This is THE rule of
‘* our faith ; without this our faith is but a fantasie, and no faith,
“for faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
“ Therefore Christ saith, ‘Search the Scriptures, they are they
“that testify of me.’ There shall ye find testimony of my
“ doctrine, there shall ye know what is the will of my heavenly
“ Father, and there shall you receive the comfort for everlasting
6 lifes? Ὁ
““ Forasmuch as it cannot be doubted among Christian men,
“ that Christ and his Apostles appointed the Church in their
“time in such sort as no better could be devised, let us com-
* pare the Church of late time and that original ; as the use is,
“ in trying of measures, where in trial whether is true or false,
* ve have evermore recourse to the standard ; for if there be any
“‘ fault, whatsoever it be, the standard will bewray it. This
* order Christ himself used with the priests and pharisees.....
« By this standard Christ reproved the Sadducees ; ‘ You err,
* not knowing the Scriptures.’ And by the same he confuted
“ the devil when he came to tempt him; ‘It is written.’ This
* standard shall be able to warrant us, if we can say truly, ‘It
“15 written.’ For as the learned Father Ireneus saith, ‘ The
Scripture is the pillar and foundation of our faith.’ It is rash-
* ness to believe without the warrant or direction of the Scriptures.
“ Tt is not devotion nor Catholic faith, but foolish rashness.” ὅ
“ When Paul came to Berea from Thessalonica, and began
“ there to preach the gospel of Christ, the people ran to their
‘books, searched the Scriptures, conferred his doctrine with
“ the word of God, and when they found that in all points it
“ agreed therewith, then they believed Paul, then they embraced
* his doctrine, then with willing hearts they clave to his disci-
1 Treatise of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 832—34, in his Works.
2 Sermons, p. 173.
368 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ pline. And as they did, even so let us do, good brethren ; let us
“ not judge rashly ‘of God’s ministers, let us not over hastily
“ sive sentence of them ; let us not report evil of God’s servants :
“ but let us well weigh and consider what thing they teach us ;
“ let us examine and try their doctrine with the touchstone of God’s
“ word; let us confer their preaching, their teaching, their disci-
“ »line, with the Scriptures of the Holy Ghost. And this when
“ you have done, then be you our judges ; then if you see that
“‘ we teach you nothing but the mysteries of God, if you per-
ceive that we only disclose unto you the will of God, if you
“ see that we preach unto you none other thing than the secrets
“ of God’s gospel, esteem us to be the servants of God, the
“ ministers of Christ, and stewards of the secrets of God.”
«« ¢Try all things.’ God hath given you the spirit of discre-
* tion and of judgment. Be wise, and know what is that good
“ and acceptable will of God. Be not deceived with words of
* man’s wisdom. .... Thus are the people of God called to try
“ the truth, to judge between good and ill, between light and
« darkness. God hath made them the promise of his Spirit, and
“ hath left unto them his word. They of Berea, when they heard
“ the preaching of Paul, searched the Scriptures daily, whether
“ those things were so as he taught them, and many of them
“ believed. So do you: give heed to instruction, and yet receive
“ not all things without proof and trial, that they are not contrary
“ to the wholesome doctrine of the word of God.” 5
Such is the testimony of one who is put forward to us as
maintaining the doctrine, “that the unanimous witness of
* Christendom is the only and the fully sufficient and the really
“ existing guarantee of the whole revealed faith ; that Catholicity
“is the only test of truth.” ὃ
Of the Fathers he speaks thus ;—
«“ You know, right well, we despise not the authority of the
“ holy Fathers, but rather, in this self-same place, have alleged
“ together S. Augustine, S. Hierome, and S. Ambrose, three of
“the most antient and approved Fathers; and throughout the
“ whole discourse of this Apology in the defence of the Catholic
1 Sermons, p. 226. 2 On 1 Thess, y. 21. p. 102.
3 Kesxe’s Catena Patrum, (Tract 78) p. 2. ;
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 369
“ truth of our religion, next unto God’s holy word, have used no
“ proof or authority so much as the expositions and judgments
“ of the holy Fathers. We despise them not, therefore ; but
“ rather give God thanks in their behalf, for that it hath pleased
“ him to provide so worthy instruments for his Church. .....
** To come near the matter, we say not that all cases of doubt
“ave, by manifest and open words, plainly expressed in the
“ Scriptures. For so there should need no exposition. But, we
‘ say, there is no case in religion so dark and doubtful, but it may
“ necessarily be either proved or reproved by collection and con-
<¢ ference of the Scriptures...... In this conference and judg-
* ment of the holy Scriptures, we need oftentimes the discretion
“ and wisdom of learned Fathers. But, notwithstanding, may
“< we not give them herein greater credit than is convenient ; or
“ than they themselves, if it were offered, would receive. We
** may reverently say of them, as Seneca in the like case some-
“time said, ‘ They are our leaders, but not our lords’? They ave
“€ not the truth of God itself, but only witnesses unto the truth.
« ... St. Augustine saith, ‘Solis canonicis Scripturis sine ulla
“ recusatione consensum debeo.’ ‘I owe my consent without
“ oainsaying (not unto the doctors or fathers, but) only unto
“ the canonical Scriptures.’ But the bishops in those Councils,
“ saith M. Harding, brought forth and followed the expositions
“ of the antient learned Fathers. And wherefore might they
“not? What man ever taught or said the contrary ? Yet not-
“ withstanding they alleged them not as the foundations or grounds,
“ but only as approved and faithful witnesses of the truth. St.
““ Augustine in another case concerning the Arians .. . . likewise
“ yefuseth the determinations of all Councils and Fathers, and
“ standeth only to the Scriptures; Neither will I, saith he,
“ allege against thee the Council of Nice ; nor shalt thou allege
“against me the Council of Ariminum, &c. Neither doth S.
« Augustine only say thus ; but also yieldeth a reason why he
“ saith it. These be his words. ‘ Have away all those authorities
“ that either of us allegeth against the other ; saving only such
“as be taken out of the heavenly canonical Scriptures. But
“« perhaps some man will ask me, Wherefore would ye have all
“ such other attthorities put away ? I answer, Because I would
VOL. IIT. BB
370 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ have the holy Church to be proved, not by the doctrines of
“ men, but by the word of God.’.... Fain would M. Harding
“ have his reader believe {so similar were his tactics to those of
“ the Tractators| that we utterly despise all holy Fathers. But
“‘ we despise them not, M. Harding, as may partly appear by
“ that we have already said. We read their works, we reverence
“ them, we give God thanks for them ; we call them the pillars,
“ the lights, the fathers of God’s Church ; we despise them not.
“ This thing only we say, Were their learning and holiness
“ never so great, yet be they not equal in credit with the Scrip-
τὸ tares vot God. i.e): As the Scriptures were written by the
“ Spirit of God, so must they be expounded by the same. For
““ without that Spirit we have neither ears to hear, nor eyes to
“see. It is that Spirit that openeth, and no man shutteth ; the
“same shutteth, and no man openeth. The same Spirit pre-
“ pared and opened the silkwoman’s heart, that she should give
“ ear to and consider the things that were spoken by S. Paul.
“ And in respect of this Spirit, the Prophet Esay saith,
¢ They shall be all taught of God.’ But God hath not bound
“ himself that this Spirit should evermore dwell in Rome,
“ but upon the lowly and humble-hearted that trembleth αἱ the word
Of Godkaeie 7s Whereas we make reasonable request that God
“may be umpire in his own cause, and that all our controversies
“ may be judged and tried by the holy Scriptures, M. Harding
“ thereto answereth thus, the Scripture standeth not in the words,
“ but in the sense; and the same sense is continued by tradition in
“ the Church. Otherwise he saith, the Jews, the Arians, the Nes-
“ torians, the Eutychians, and all other heretics, were always able
“ to claim by the Scriptures. .... Notwithstanding Pharisees and
“ heretics wickedly misalleged the Scriptures, as ye sometimes
“ do, to serve your purpose, yet for all that, Christ said unto them,
“ὁ Search the Scriptures. And, as it is said before, the Catholic
* learned Fathers, in all their cases and controversies, appealed
“ evermore to the Scriptures. ... . To conclude, wHEREAS M.
“ HARDING SAITH, WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES
“ WITHOUT TRADITION, [the very words of the Tractators] THE
“ ANTIENT FatTHER [RENAXUS SAITH,.THIS IS ONE SPECIAL MARK
“ WHEREBY WE MAY KNOW AN HERETIC.”1 =~
1 Defence of Apology, pp. 53—69.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 371
“But what say we of the Fathers, Augustine, Ambrose,
““ Hierome, Cyprian, &c.? What shall we think of them; or
““ what account may we make of them? They be interpreters
“ of the word of God. They were learned men, and learned
“ Fathers ; the instruments of the mercy of God; and vessels
““ full of grace. We despise them not, we read them, we re-
*‘ verence them, and give thanks unto God for them. They
“‘ were witnesses unto the truth; they were worthy pillars and
* ornaments in the Church of God. Yet may they not be com-
** pared with the word of God. We may not build upon them ;
“we may not make them the foundation and warrant of our con-
** science,—we may not put our trust in them. Our trust is in
“ the name of the Lord. And thus are we taught to esteem of
the learned Fathers of the Church, by their own judgment ;
“ by that which they have written, either for the credit of their
“ own doings, or of the authority which they have thought due
“ to the writings of others.”’?
“ But they say, the Scriptures be dark, therefore we must
“ seek the meaning of them in the doctors. Tur DOCTORS AGREE
“wor. Then must we weigh and try them by the Master of the
“ Sentences. The Master of the Sentences himself sometimes
“is not holden. Then must we seek further to the school-
“ doctors. The school-doctors can in no wise agree. There
“is Scotus against Thomas, and Occam against Scotus, and
“ Alliacensis against Occam ; the nominals against the reals,
“the scholasticals against the canonists ; the contention is
“ greater, and the doubts darker, than ever they were before.” *
“ Saint Hierome (contra Luciferianos) saith, ‘ Nomine uni-
“tatis et fidei infidelitas scripta est ;’ ‘infidelity hath been
*“ written under the name of faith and unity.’ For herein they
“thought themselves good, and holy, and catholic, if they
“ departed not from the unity of the world. Therefore they
** followed the general consent of others,—they thought them-
“ selves, saith he, the true Church, and seemed to follow unity ;
“ though, indeed, they fell to infidelity. ‘ Whatsoever is not of
“ faith, is sin ;’ whatsoever it be, be it never so holy, never so
1 Treat. of the Holy Script. p. 36.
2 Reply to Harding’s Answer, p. 193,
BB 2
372 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
glorious, it is sin; it displeaseth God; the end thereof is
destruction. Therefore Christ saith, ‘I am the light of the
“ world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but
“ shall have the light of life.” .... The will of the Lord
“ὁ ὃς the only measure whereby all truth must be tried. .... Leave
“ the pretence of zeal, leave the devotion of your own heart,
‘rest not upon the will of your forefathers, nor of flesh and
“blood. Learn to feel and taste the will of God; it is good,
“ and gracious, and merciful ; thereby direct your steps, therein
“ shall you find the possession of life.””?
And in defence of that passage in the Apology, in which he
says, “Thus did the holy Fathers always fight against the here-
tics with none other force than with the holy Scriptures ;” to
which Harding (like the Tractators) objects, that, in the early
Councils, the points in dispute were determined by an appeal to
the exposition of the holy Fathers, particularly at Nice, (our
opponents’ favorite reference); and that it was the heretics
only who resorted to the sole authority of the Scriptures ; Bishop
Jewel remarks, “ Touching the Arians, that they alleged certain
“ doubtful and dark places of the Scriptures to serve their
“ purpose, it is certain and manifest. But that either they
“ despised, or that the Catholics against them avouched, the
“‘ exposition and authority of any Father, M. Harding’s only
“ word must be our warrant. For neither allegeth he any one
“ author for proof hereof; nor yet nameth any of all these
“ Fathers. Notwithstanding, let us grant these heretics cried
“ out, as M. Harding saith, Scriptures, Scriptures. Even so
“did the same heretics likewise cry out, even as now Δί.
“ Harding doth, Fathers, Fathers . . [and then adducing
“ several instances of such appeals, he adds] . . 1 doubt not, _
«ἍΜ, Harding, but you may hereby easily see, that the heretics
“ ye speak of, cried not only, Scriptures, Scriptures, as ye say,
“ but had leisure, also, sometimes to cry, as you do, Fathers,
“ Fathers. Touching this word Homousius, which M. Harding
“ here moveth, and the whole contention of the Arians, Epi-
“‘ phanius writeth thus, ‘This word, substance, plainly and
nakedly, is not found, neither in the Old, nor in the New
1 Sermons, pp. 212—13.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 979
“ Testament ; but the sense and meaning of that word is found
** everywhere. ..... Now let us see whether the bishops and
“ others in these Councils confuted these heretics, as we say,
“ by the Scriptures ; or else, as M. Harding seemeth to say, for
“ want or weakness of the Scriptures used therein the authority of
“ the Fathers. . . [and then having adduced several passages
“ to show that it was by the authority of the Scriptures only that
“ such matters were decided, he adds,] But the bishops in those
“ Councils, saith M. Harding, brought forth and followed the
“ expositions of the antient learned Fathers. And wherefore
“ might they not? What man ever taught or said the con-
“trary? Yet notwithstanding they alleged them, not as the
“ foundations or grounds, but only as approved and faithful wit-
“ nesses of the truth.” +
And again, in another part, he says, that the antient heretics,
“in defence of their errors, avouched the judgment of all the
“old bishops and doctors that had been before them, and the
“ general consent of the primitive and whole universal Church.’’?
And before I conclude the extracts on this head, I would call
the reader’s attention to a passage touching the degree of autho-
rity due to the customs in force in the Primitive Church, and
beg him to observe how differently Bishop Jewel spoke of it,
from what the Tractators do. The bishop’s view clearly is, that
all that is of divine authority and perpetual obligation, is to be
found in the Scriptures ; and that as to other rites and customs,
even though they might claim an Apostle for their author, they
were not binding upon the Church in all ages, but might vary
with circumstances.
“Where ye grant,” he says to Dr. Cole, “that ye of your side
“ have varied, and do yet vary, from the customs of the Primi-
“ tive Church, I cannot but commend your plainness therein,
“in telling the truth. But where, then, is your Antiquity be-
“come? ... But ye say, further, that the examples of the
“ apostles and doctors bind you not.... Ye conclude that it
ἐς were an error to say we are bound, of necessity, to follow the
“ use of the Primitive Church. To make you a full and a clear
“ answer hereunto, I must needs use this distinction. There
1 Def. of Apol. pp. 54—d6. 2 Ib. p. 509.
374 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“‘ were some orders in the Primitive Church commanded by
“God; and some other were devised by men for the better
“ training of the people. Such orders as were commanded by
“ God, may not be changed in any case, only because God com-
“ manded them. For as God is everlasting, so is his word and
*“ commandment everlasting. Of the other side, such orders
as have been devised by men, may be broken upon some good
consideration, only because they were men that devised them ;
for as men themselves be mortal, so all their wisdoms and
inventions be but mortal. As, that the communion should
be used in the morning or at night; that women should
come to the Church either covered or openfaced, wherein ye
say S. Peter took order, that the ministers’ goods should be
all in common, or otherwise, &c. These, and other like, were
things appointed and ordered by men, and therefore were
never used in all places of one sort ; but as they were brought
‘im by men, so might they be dissolved and broken by men.
In these things, I grant, the examples of the doctors or
apostles bind us not.... But of the other part, I say that
such things as God hath commanded precisely by his word,
may never be broken by any custom or consent. And such be
the things that we now require at your hands . . . The cup
which ye have taken from the people is not a ceremony, but
a part of the sacrament ... Again, to pray in such a tongue
as the people may understand, and thereby be edified, is
not a ceremony to be changed at man’s pleasure, but the
“ commandment of God,” &c.}
Further, as it respects the fourth point, viz. the alleged
obscurity of the Scriptures, and the consequent necessity of
Church-Tradition to interpret them, thus speaks Bishop Jewel.
“They say, the Scriptures are hard, and above the reach of
“the people. So said the Pelagian heretic, Julian, whom
“ §. Augustine therefore reproveth.... But God himself, and
“ the antient Fathers of the Church, said otherwise.... Some
“ things in the Seriptures are hard; I deny it not. It is very
“ expedient that somewhat should be covered to make us more
“ dihgent in reading, more desirous to understand, more fervent
1 Tb. pp. 41, 2,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 3875
“in prayer, more willing to ask the judgment of cthers, and to
“ presume the less of our own judgment.... It is true which
“ §. Peter hath said, some things are hard to be understood.
* But it is also true, that they which pervert them unto their
“ own destruction, are unlearned and unstable; that is, they to
“ whom they are hard, have not their eyes opened that they may
“ see the light of the word; or they be wicked, and_turn the
“ truth of God into lies, and abuse the Scriptures to their own
“ damnation. The owlet seeth not by the brightness of the
“sun; not because the sunbeams are dark, but for that his
*“ eyes are weak, and cannot abide so clear light; it is, there-
“ fore, but a pretence and colour for their ignorance, and a means
* to deceive the people more boldly with their errors, when they
“ charge the word of God with darkness and hardness.... The
“ ways of the Lord are straight, and his words plain, even unto
“ the simple. Chrysostom saith, ‘ All things are clear and plain
“in the holy Scriptures ; whatsoever things there are necessary
“ for us, are also manifest.’ Some things are covered, as men
“cover precious stones and precious garments. They are
“ covered, and yet we see them. We see them, and yet they
“are covered. Yet all things that are necessary, are plain and
“ open.... {and after quoting a passage from Theodoret, he
“ adds] Thus we see there was a time, before ignorance
“crept into the Church, and got the upper hand, when the
“ word of God was not counted hard, and dark, and doubtful ;
“when children, and women, and servants, and men of the
“ country, had the knowledge of God, and were able to reason
“ of the works of God. Then went it well with them; they
“could not easily be deceived, because they had that word
“ which bewrayeth the thief; they carried with them, lke good
“ exchangers, the weights and touchstone; and were able to
“try coins, whether they were true or false. Such were the
“ people, such was the state of God’s Church in those days.” !
“We teach not the people to presume of knowledge, as you
“teach them to presume of ignorance. But only we exhort
“ them, for the better satisfaction of their consciences, to read
“the Scriptures, and therein to learn the goodwill of God....
1 Treat. of the Holy Script. pp. 43—46.
376 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“« But ye will say, the Scriptures are hard, and above the reach
“ of the people. Even so said the Pelagian heretic, Julianus,
“ and therefore S. Augustine thus reproveth him for the same.”’?
“ Whereas M. Harding, to withdraw the people’s hearts from
“ὁ reading, saith, the Scriptures are dark and dangerous, and no
“ man able to wade in them without a guide, S. Chrysostom
“ contrariwise, to encourage the people to read the Scriptures,
“saith they be plain and easy; and that the ignorant and
“ simple man, by prayer unto God, may attain the knowledge of
“ them, without any master or teacher, by himself alone.” 5
“ Notwithstanding a few certain places in the holy Scriptures
“be obscure, yet generally ‘the Scriptures are a candle to
“ ouide our feet ;’ generally, ‘God’s commandment is light, and
“liehteneth the eyes;’ and therefore, generally, the word of
“ God is full of comfort.... [and then proceeding to quote
“ from Chrysostom and others, he adds] Thus, notwithstanding
“ certain clauses and sentences in the holy Scriptures be hard
“and dark, yet by these holy Fathers’ judgments, the Scrip-
“ tures generally are easy and clear.... True it is, flesh and
“blood is not able to understand the holy will of God, without
“ special revelation. Therefore Christ gave thanks unto his
“ Father, ‘For that he had revealed his secrets unto the little
“ ones,’ and likewise ‘opened the hearts of his disciples, that
“ they might understand the Scriptures.’ Without this special
“ help and prompting of God’s holy Spirit, the word of God is
“ unto the reader, be he never so wise, or well learned, as the
“ vision of a sealed book. But this revelation is not special unto
“one or two, but general to all them that be the members of
“ Christ, and are endued with the Spirit of God.’ ὃ
It is the written word, he tells us, that convicts heretics, and
enables us to avoid heresies. “This word confounded the
Arians, and all sorts of heretics.” * “ In the Primitive Church,
“and long after the Apostles’ time, there were sundry sects
“and sorts of heresies....yet, that notwithstanding, the
“ antient Fathers then evermore called upon the people, and
“exhorted them to read the Scriptures, to the intent they
1 Def. of Apol. pp. 516, 17. 2 Reply to Harding, p. 152.
3 Reply to Harding, pp. 393, 4. 4 Treat. of the Holy Script. p. 33.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 377
* might the better avoid heresies. For Irenzeus, writing against
“ the heretics called Valentiniani, saith thus, ‘All this befel
“unto them, because they knew not the Scriptures.’......
“ Likewise, saith Theophylact, ‘ Nothing can deceive them that
“ search the holy Scriptures; for that is the candle whereby the
“ thief is espied.’ 1
And it convicts hereties, he says, in that very point in which
our authors tell us we are indebted to Tradition for the orthodox
doctrine, as we have already seen in a quotation given above ;
and as he again states in the following,— M. Harding saith,
“ These express words, Persona, Ingenitus, Homousios, are not
“ found in the Scriptures. So said the Arian heretics, too, as
“ well as he; but what forceth that? Epiphanius saith, ‘This
“‘ very word substantia, is not plainly expressed, neither in the
“ New, nor in the Old Testament; but the sense and meaning
“ of that word is everywhere.’ ” ?
In short, his views on this point may be at once known from
the testimony already quoted above,— Zo conclude, whereas
“ M. Harding saith, we cannot understand the Scriptures without
“ tradition ; the ancient Father, Ireneus, saith, this is one special
“mark whereby we may know an heretic.” ὃ
Lastly, as it respects the fifth point, that it is on the authority
of Church-Tradition that we must receive the Scriptures, the
following testimony may suffice. ‘ Here M. Harding thinketh
“ to oppress us with THE OLD HERETICS’ ORDINARY QUESTION,
“ «How know you, saith he, that the Scriptures be the Serip-
“ tures? How know you that the gospel of Thomas, Bartho-
“ lomew and Nicodeme are no Scriptures?’ Thus they labour
“ to pull all credit from the word of God, and send us only to their
“ traditions .... A man might well demand the like question of
“ M. Harding. How know you that the sun is the sun? or that
“4 the moon is the moon? or how know you that the Church is
“the Church; or that the congregation of the wicked is not
“the Church? Such idle questions the old heretics, the
“ Manichees, demanded of S. Augustine. But S. Augustine
“ answered them, ‘If you demand of us how we know that
“these be the Apostles’ writings, we make you this short
1 Reply to Harding, p. 392. 32 Def. of Apol. p.203. 8. Def. of Apol. p. 69.
378 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“answer; Even so we know that our writings are of the
“ Apostles, as you know that your writings are of the heretic
“* Manichee.’ 1
Such are the statements of the esteemed prelate who is
appealed to by Mr. Keble, as a supporter of the Tractators’
doctrine of “ Tradition.”
But, in truth, the Tractators themselves have almost spared
us the necessity of demonstrating their error and inconsistency
in such appeals, by having themselves, at last, turned upon the
very man to whom they here appeal as the supporter of this
doctrine, as one altogether opposed to their whole system.
The first distinct intimation of the light in which the Trac-
tators view our Reformers, was given in Mr. Froude’s Remains,
(edited by Mr. Newman,) whose wholesale abuse of the Re-
formers, especially Jewel, having somewhat startled the Church,
some feeble excuses were hinted on the ground of his being but
an individual, and one accustomed to speak with freedom and
vehemence. But as the Tractators’ doctrine gained ground,
and the impression made upon the public mind was deepened,
it seems to have been supposed, that an advance might be made,
and “the worthiest divine that Christendom had bred for the
space of some hundreds of years,” as the “judicious” Hooker
called him, fairly thrown overboard. Accordingly, in a Number
of the British Critic, there appeared an article whose express
“object ” it was “to justify the substance of those disparaging
remarks.” 5
In this article, it is said of Jewel ;—“ Bishop Jewel contrives,
“with the help of the Fathers, to reduce to atoms nearly the
“ whole stately and well-proportioned fabric of Catholicism.” 3
“Without going into the question, whether Roman Catho-
“ licism is not at least better than such Protestantism as Bishop
“ Jewel’s.”’ 4
The Articles of the Church of England “ were certainly
framed by persons of a thoroughly uncatholic spirit.” ὃ
“Ours is the humbler, as well as less pleasant task, of
Def. of the Apol. p. 204.
Brit. Crit. for July, 1841, p. 8. 5 Ibs pG.
Brit. Crit. for July, 1841. p. 13. 5 ΤΌ, p.27-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 379
“ assailmg the credit of the most active of the Elizabethan
“ Reformers.” 4
*‘ Archbishop Parker tried to force it [7.e. Jewel’s Apology, |
“ and the still more objectionable ‘ Defence,’ almost as a quasi-
“ formulary upon the Church of England.” *
Now this last remark, be it remembered, is made respecting
a work which Collier, the Nonjuror, tells us was “set forth
with the consent of the bishops ; which, according to Bishop
Randolph, “was always understood to speak the sense of the
whole Church, in whose name it is written ;’ which is quoted
by Hooker as “The English Apology,” and is recognized in
Canon 80 of the Canons of 1603, as “The Apology of the
Church of England.” ®
How are we to account for such extraordinary inconsistency ?
Can it be satisfactorily explained? To say the least, what con-
fidence can be placed in the guidance of such teachers ?
From Jewel let us pass on to “ the judicious ”
Hooker.
The passage which Mr. Keble has quoted from him, is taken
from his Ecclesiastical Polity, bk. 3. ch. 1. In what way it
bears upon the subject, I am quite at a loss to conjecture; and,
therefore, as the work is in every one’s hands, it is unnecessary
to do more than refer the reader to it.
But has Hooker only spoken thus indistinctly on this subject ?
Let us inquire.
As it respects the first point, then, as to Tradition being a
divine informant, his testimony is as follows ;—
« When the question, therefore, is whether we be now to seek
“ for any revealed law of God, otherwise than only in the Sacred
“ Scripture ; whether we do now stand bound in the sight of
“ God to yield to traditions, urged by the Church of Rome, the
“* same obedience and reverence we do to his written law, honour-
“ing equally, and adoring both as divine; our answer ts, no.
“ They that so earnestly plead for the authority of Trap1rion,
“ Tobserve, not Romish traditions in particular, but Tradition,|
1 Tb. p. 32. 2 Ib. p. 37. 3 See p. 332 above.
380 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“as if nothing were more safely conveyed, than that which
“ spreadeth itself by report, and descendeth by relation of former
“ generations unto the ages that succeed, are not all of them—
“ surely a miracle it were, if they should be—so simple as thus to
“ persuade themselves; howsoever, if the simple were so persuaded,
* they could be content, perhaps, very well to enjoy the benefit,
“as they account it, of that common error. What hazard the
“ truth ts in when tt passeth through the hands of report, how
“ maimed and deformed it becometh, they are not, they cannot pos-
“ sibly be ignorant. Let them that are indeed of this mind,
“ consider but only that little of things divine, which the heathen
“have in such sort received. How miserable had the state of
“ the Church of God been, long ere this, if, wanting the sacred
“ Scriptures, we had no record of his laws, but only the memory
“ of man receiving the same by report and relation from his
“ predecessors ?” }
And hence, in another place, he says,—‘“ They which add
“ traditions as a part of supernatural necessary truth, have not
‘the truth, but are in error. For they only plead that what-
“ soever God revealeth as necessary for all Christian men to do
“ or believe, the same we ought to embrace, whether we have
*‘ received it by writing, or otherwise; which no man denieth :
“when that which they should confirm, who claim so great
“reverence unto TRADITIONS, 15, that the same traditions are
“ necessarily to be acknowledged divine and holy. For we do
“ not reject them only because they are not in the Scripture,
“but because they are neither in Scripture, nor can otherwise
“ sufficiently, by any reason, be proved to be of God. That which
“is of God, and may be evidently proved to be so, we deny not
“but it hath in his kind, although unwritten, yet the self-same
“ force and authority with the written laws of God.”? Here,
again, he speaks not of Romish traditions in particular, but of
traditions generally, and affirms that they cannot be proved to
be of God. How we are to account for Mr. Newman’s per-
version of this passage (Lect. xi. p. 334), 1 am quite at a loss
to understand. And so, in another place, he speaks of “ wncer-
tain Tradition.” ὃ And again :— “ The word of God is his
1 Eccl. Pol. bk. i. ch. 18. 2 Bk.i. ch. 14. 3 Bk. ii. ch. 8. See p. 387 below.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 381
“heavenly truth touching matters of eternal life revealed and
“ uttered unto men ; unto Prophets and Apostles by immediate
“ divine inspiration, from them to us by their books and
“ writings. We therefore have no word of God but the Scrip-
“ture,” 1
Hence, when he comes to speak of the sign of the cross in
baptism, he says, “ We observe it not as the ordinance of Ged,
“but of man. ‘For, saith Tertullian, ‘ if of this, and the like
“ customs, thou shouldest require some commandment to be
“showed thee out of Scriptures, there is none found ;” 2
clearly showing, that Hooker considered it only an ordinance
of man, not of God, because it could not be “ showed out of
Scriptures.”
And having thus altogether rejected the notion of the divine
or apostolical origin of “Tradition,” in matters both of faith
and practice, when he has occasion afterwards to mention “ Tra-
dition” as “justifying” the use of the cross in baptism, he adds,
— Lest, therefore, the name of Tradition should be offensive to
“ any, considering how far by some it hath been, and is abused,
* we mean by traditions, ordinances made in the prime of Christian
“ religion, established with that authority which Christ hath left
to his Church for matters indifferent ; and in that consideration
“ requisite to be observed, till like authority see just and reason-
“ able cause to alter them. So that traditions ecclesiastical are not
“ rudely and in gross to be shaken off, because the inventors of
“ them were men.” ὃ
He discards, therefore, even the use of the word “ traditions,”
except in the sense of ordinances made at an early period by
the Church; and these he holds to be at any time alterable by
the Church.
Let us proceed to the second and third points.
First, as to the necessary points of faith and practice.
“ Neither,” says Hooker, “can I find that men of soundest
“ qudgment have any otherwise taught, than that articles of belief
“ and things which all men must, of necessity, do, to the end they
“« may be saved, are either expressly set down in Scripture, or else
* plainly thereby to be gathered.” *
Me 4 a a 2 Bk. οἷ. 65,
3 Bk. v. ch. 65. 4 Bk. iii. ch. x.
382 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
And these testimonies are the more weighty, because Hooker’s
opponents disregarded and despised everything but Scripture,
even in minute points of discipline ; so that Hooker’s argument
rather led him to show what Scripture was not fitted for, than
how complete it was. Bearing this in mind, let us observe how,
in the following passage, this “ judicious” writer holds the mean
between Popery and Puritanism.
* An earnest desire to draw all things unto the determination
“ of bare and naked Scripture, [for the proposition of the early
“ nonconformists, which Hooker in this place undertakes to
“ controvert, was, ‘that Scripture is the only rule of ail things
* which in this life may be done by men,’| hath caused here much
** pains to be taken in abating the estimation and credit of man.
“ Which if we labour to maintain as far as truth and reason will
“ bear, let not any think that we travel about a matter not
“ greatly needful. For the scope of all their pleading against
“ἐς man’s authority is, to overthrow such orders, laws, and consti-
“ tutions in the Church, as depending thereupon, if they should
ἐς therefore be taken away, would peradventure leave neither
“ face nor memory of Church to continue long in the world, the
“‘ world especially being such as now it is...... Wherefore, to
“ say that simply an argument taken from man’s authority doth
“hold no way, ‘neither affirmatively nor negatively,’ is hard.
“ By a man’s authority we here understand the force which his
* word hath for the assurance of another’s mind that buildeth
ἘΠ ΡΟΝ Προς And if it be admitted, that in matter of fact
“ there is some credit to be given to the testimony of man, but
“not in matter of opinion and judgment, we see the contrary
** both acknowledged and universally practised also throughout
“the world. The sentences of wise and expert men were never
* but highly esteemed...... Utterly to infringe the force and
“strength of man’s testimony, were to shake the very fortress
“ of God’s truth. For whatsoever we believe concerning salva-
“tion by Christ, although the Scripture be therein the ground
“ of our belief, yet the authority of man is, if we mark it, the
“key which openeth the door of entrance into the knowledge of
“the Scripture. The Scripture could not teach us the things
“ that are of God, unless we did credit men who have taught us
[1
ce
«e
ce
[1
ce?
ce
”n
n
“.
n
[1
n
n
n
n
[1
ce
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 383
that the words of Scripture do signify those things.! Some
way, therefore, notwithstandmg man’s infirmity, yet his
authority may enforce assent. Upon better advice and deli-
beration so much is perceived and at the length confest, that
arguments taken from the authority of men may not only so
far forth as hath been declared, but further also be of some
force in ‘human sciences ;’ which force, be it never so small,
doth show that they are not utterly naught. But in ‘ matters
divine’ it is still maintained stiffly that they have no manner
force at all. Howbeit, the very selfsame reason which causeth
to yield that they are of some force in the one, will at the
length constrain also to acknowledge that they are not in the
other altogether unforcible...... Whom God hath endued
with principal gifts to aspire unto knowledge by ; whose exer-
cises, labors, and divine studies, he hath so blessed, that the
world, for their great and rare skill that way, hath them in
singular admiration, may we reject even their judgment like-
wise as being utterly of no moment? For mine own part
I dare not so lightly esteem of the Church and of the principal
pillars therein...... I grant that proof derived from the autho-
rity of man’s judgment is not able to work that assurance which
doth grow by a stronger proof ; and, therefore, ALTHOUGH TEN
THOUSAND GENERAL COUNCILS WOULD SET DOWN ONE AND
THE SAME DEFINITIVE SENTENCE CONCERNING ANY POINT OF
RELIGION WHATSOEVER, YET ONE DEMONSTRATIVE REASON
ALLEGED, OR ONE MANIFEST TESTIMONY CITED FROM THE
MOUTH OF GOD HIMSELF TO THE CONTRARY, COULD NOT
CHOOSE BUT OVERWEIGH THEM ALL; INASMUCH AS FOR THEM TO
HAVE BEEN DECEIVED, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE ; IT IS, THAT DE-
MONSTRATIVE REASON OR TESTIMONY DIVINE SHOULD DECEIVE.
Howbeit in defect of proof infallible, because the mind doth
rather follow probable persuasions than approve the things that
have in them no hkelihood of truth at all, surely if a ques-
tion concerning matter of doctrine were proposed, and on the
1 This sentence explains the preceding, which has been quoted in a sense never
intended by Hooker. “His sense,” as Bishop Stillingfleet says, “is plain and
obvious, viz. that men cannot come to the natural sense and importance of the
words used in Scripture, unless they rely on the authority of men for the signi-
fication of those words,” (Grounds of Prot. Rel. ch. 7. sub fin.)
384. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ one side no kind of proof appearing, there should on the other
“be alleged and showed, that so a number of the learnedest
“ divines in the world have ever thought, although it did not
“‘ appear what reason or what Scripture led them to be of that
“ judgment, yet to their very bare judgment somewhat a reason-
“able man would attribute, notwithstanding the common im-
“ becilities which are incident into our nature. And whereas it
“is thought that especially with ‘the Church, and those that
“ are called and persuaded of the authority of the word of God,
“ man’s authority,’ with them especially, ‘should not prevail,’
“it must and doth prevail even with them, yea with them
* especially, as far as equity requireth, and further we maintain tt
ἐπ γα μος Concerning the verdict of Jerome, if no man, be
“ he never so well learned, have, after the Apostles, any autho-
“rity to publish new doctrine as from heaven, and to require
“the world’s assent as unto truth received by prophetical
‘revelation, doth this prejudice the credit of learned men’s
“* judgments in opening that truth which by being conversant in
“ the Apostles’ writings they have themselves from thence [observe
“ « from thence” | learned? .... We cannot, therefore, be per-
ἐς suaded, that the will of God is, we should so far reject the
“ authority of men as to reckon it NotHING.” (bk. 11. ch. 7.) In
these judicious observations, there are few, comparatively, I
suppose, who will not heartily concur.
There is one passage, however, in this chapter, which, as it is
particularly forcible in exposing an important error of our
opponents connected with this point, and is independent of the
context, I have reserved to notice by itself. The Tractators
stoutly maintain, that the great points in dispute in the Primitive
Church were decided by the orthodox Fathers by a reference to
Tradition ; and that in this the orthodox were distinguished from
heretics, who appealed only to Scripture. Now, one of the
arguments of the disputant (Cartwright) with whom Hooker
was more particularly contending, was that the Fathers on those
occasions appealed only to Scripture to decide, and that there-
fore they held human authority as of no value. How, then, does
Hooker meet this statement? Does he take the view main-
tained by the Tractators, and deny his opponents’ premises as
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 385
to the Fathers’ appeals to Scripture? Precisely the contrary.
He adopts and strongly maintains his opponent’s premises, but
justly denies his conclusion. “ In that antient strife,” he says,
* which was between the Catholic Fathers and Arians, Donatists,
* and others of like perverse and froward disposition, as long as to
“ Fathers or Councils alleged on the one side the like by the con-
“ trary side were opposed, IMPOSSIBLE it was that ever the question
“ should by THIS MEANS grow unto any issue or end. The Scrip-
“ ture they both believed; tan Scrivture they knew could not
““ give sentence ON BOTH sIDES; by Scripture the controversy
“ between them was such as might be determined. In this case
“‘ WHAT MADNESS was it with such kinds of proofs to NouRISH
“ THEIR CONTENTION, when there were such EFFECTUAL MEANS
“ to end all controversy that was between them!” Here, then, in
the very strongest terms he could use, he constitutes Scripture
the Judge of these controversies. But he justly concludes, against
the hasty and unauthorized inference of his opponent from the
facts here allowed, “ Hereby, therefore, it doth not as yet appear,
“ that an argument of authority of man affirmatively is in mat-
“ ters divine NOTHING worth.” }
Again; “They which rightly consider after what sort the
“* heart of man hereunto is framed, must of necessity acknow-
*‘ ledge, that whoso assenteth to the words of eternal life doth
“it im regard of his authority whose words they are.” 5
Further; let the reader weigh well the following passage,
recollecting that the system under review is based upon the
supposition that primitive Church-tradition was derived from
the oral teaching of the Apostles. “ Furthermore, having re-
“ceived Apostolic doctrine, [1. 6. in the Scriptures, for it is of
“yeading the Scriptures that he is speaking,] the Apostle
* St. Paul hath taught us to esteem the same as the supreme rule
“* whereby all other doctrines {using the word in its proper sense
“‘ as meaning teachings | must for ever be examined. (Gal.i. 8, 9.)
«Yea, but inasmuch as the Apostle doth there speak of that he
“had preached, he flatly maketh —as they strangely affirm—
“ his Preachings or Sermons the rule whereby to examine all.
“ And then, I beseech you, what rule have we whereby to judge
1 Bk. ii. ch. 7. 2 Bk, v. ch. 22.
VOL. III. co
386 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ or examine any? [Why, the Tractators would reply, we have
“the rule of primitive Church-tradition, which delivers down
“to us the substance of the “ preachings” of the Apostles,
« which is part of our Rule of faith ; but not so thought Hooker,
“ for he adds] For if sermons must be our rule, because the
« Apostles’ sermons were so to their hearers; then, sith we are
“ not, as they were, hearers of the Apostles’ sermons, it resteth
“ that either the sermons which we hear should be our rule, or,
“that being absurd, there will, which yet hath greater ab-
“ surdity, NO RULE AT ALL BE REMAINING FOR TRIAL what
ἐς doctrines now are corrupt, what consonant with heavenly
“truth.”! In this passage, though not directly on the subject,
Hooker’s mind respecting it is clearly, though incidentally,
disclosed.
Again; “ When we read or recite the Scripture, we then
ἐς deliver to the people properly the word of God. As for our
“ sermons .... his word is commonly the subject whereof they
“ treat, and must be the rule whereby they are framed.” Yes;
notwithstanding the misunderstood canon of 1571, the written
word of God must be THE RULE whereby our sermons are
framed.
Again; “ Exclude the use of natural reasoning about the
“ sense of Holy Scripture concerning the Articles of our faith,
“and then that the Scripture doth concern the Articles of our
“ faith who can assure us? That which by right exposition
“ buildeth up Christian faith, being misconstrued, breedeth
ἐς error; between true and false construction the difference reason
“ must show.” ὃ
Further, as it respects the notion that primitive Church-
tradition delivers to us several important divinely revealed truths
not in Scripture, we have the following testimonies. ‘ What-
“ soever we believe concerning salvation by Christ,” “the Scrip-
“ ture” is “therein the ground of our belief.”’* “ One thing
“ especially we must observe, namely, that the absolute perfection
“ of Scripture is seen by relation unto that end whereto it
“ tendeth. And even hereby it cometh to pass, that first such
1 Bk. v. ch. 22. 2 Bk. v. ch. 22.
3 Bk, iii. ch. 8. 4 Bk. ii. ch. 7.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 387
‘as imagine the general and main drift of the body of sacred
“ Scripture not to be so large as it is, nor that God did thereby
intend to deliver, as in truth he doth, a full instruction in all
“ things unto salvation necessary, the knowledge whereof man
“ by nature could not otherwise in this life attain unto; they
“are by this very mean induced either still to look for new
“ revelations from heaven, or else dangerously to add to the
* word of God uncertain tradition, that so the doctrine of man’s
* salvation may be complete; which doctrine we constantly hold
“in all respects, without any such thing added, to be so complete,
“ that WE UTTERLY REFUSE AS MUCH AS ONCE TO ACQUAINT
** OURSELVES WITH ANYTHING FURTHER. Whatsoever to make
*‘ up the doctrine of man’s salvation is added, as in supply of
* the Scripture’s unsufficiency, we reject it. Scripture purposing
* this hath perfectly and fully done it.”}
This last passage may certainly be interpreted, or rather ex-
plained away, as if it referred only to things necessary to salva-
tion ; but it appears to me clearly to include more. I leave the
reader to judge. But we have still more decisive testimonies.
“ He that readeth unto us the Scriptures,” he says elsewhere,
“ delivereth atu the mysteries of faith.” "
“70 urge anything upon the Church requiring thereunto
* that religious assent of Christian belief wherewith the words
“of the holy prophets are recewed; to urge anything as part
of that supernatural and celestially revealed truth which God
“ hath taught, and not to show it in Scripture; this did the
“ antient Fathers evermore think UNLAWFUL, IMPIOUS, EXE-
“ CRABLE.” ®
And that his views on this point include matters of practice
as well as matters of faith, that is, that none can be considered
as certainly of divine or apostolical origin, but those that are in
the Scriptures, is fully proved by the extracts already given in a
previous page.*
On the fourth point, alleging the obscurity of Scripture, and
the consequent necessity of the traditional interpretation for
understanding it, he bears this witness ;—
1 Bk. ii. ch. 8. 2 Bk. v. ch. 22.
3 Bk. ii. ch. 5. 4 See p. 381 above.
ον»
388 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ There is in Scripture, therefore, no defect, but that any man,
“ what place or calling soever he hold in the Church of God,
“may have thereby the light of his natural understanding so
“ perfected, that the one being relieved by the other, there can
“want no part of needful instruction unto any good work which
“ God himself requireth, be it natural or supernatural, belong-
“ing simply unto men as men, or unto men as they are united
“in whatsoever kind of society. It sufficeth, therefore, that
“nature and Scripture do serve in such full sort, that they
“ both jointly, and not severally either of them, be so complete,
“that unto everlasting felicity we need not the knowledge of
“ anything more than these two may easily furnish our minds with
* on all sides.” }
“The unsufliciency of the light of nature is, by the light of
“Scripture, so fully and so perfectly herein supplied, that
“ further light than this hath added, there doth not need unto
“ that end [1. e. “that we may attain unto life everlasting’’}.” ”
“We maintain, that, in Scripture, we are taught all things
necessary unto salvation ;’* and a little further on, he adds,
that, in interpreting Scripture, “between true and false con-
struction, the difference reason must show.”
Again; “I would know, by some special instance, what one
“article of Christian faith or what duty required necessarily
“unto all men’s salvation there is, which the very reading of
“ the word of God is not apt to notify. ffects are miraculous
“and strange, when they grow by unlikely means. But did
“ we ever hear it accounted for a wonder, that he which doth
“read should believe, and live according to the will of Almighty
“ God? (Exod. xxiv. 7.) Reading doth convey to the mind that
“ truth, without addition or diminution, which Scripture hath
“ derwed from the Holy Ghost. And the end of all Scripture
“is the same which St. John proposeth in the writing of that
“most divine Gospel, namely, faith ; and through faith, salva-
“tion. (John xx. 21.) Yea, all Scripture is to this effect in itself
“available, as they which wrote it were persuaded. (Prov. i.
“2—4. Rom. i. 16. 2 Tim. iii. 15.); unless we suppose that
“the Evangelist, or others, in speaking of their own intent to
1 Bk. i. ch. 14, 2 Bk. ii, ch. 8. 8 Bk, iii. ch. 8.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 389
** instruct, and to SAVE BY WRITING, had a secret conceit which
“* they never opened unto any; a conceit, that no man in the
“world should ever be that way the better for any sentence
“by them written, till such time as the same might chance to
“ be preached upon, or alleged at the least in a sermon, [or, to
“‘ sive another instance, fully included in Hooker’s argument,
* explained by Church-tradition}. Otherwise, if he which
“ writeth, do that which is forcible in itself, how should he
** which readeth, be thought to do that which, in itself, is of no
* force to work belief, and to save believers 9}
Again, even still more clearly and pointedly :—“ Touching
“ hardness, which is the second pretended impediment, as against
** homilies being plain and popular instructions it is no bar, so
“ neither doth it infringe the efficacy, no net of Scriptures although
“ but read. The force of reading, how small soever they would
*‘ have it, must, of necessity, be granted sufficient to notify that
** which 15 plain or easy to be understood. And of things neces-
* sary to all men’s salvation, we have been hitherto accustomed
“to hold, (especially sithence the publishing of the Gospel of
* Jesus Christ, whereby the simplest having now a key unto
““ knowledge, which the Eunuch in the Acts (Acts vin. 31) did
“want, OUR CHILDREN MAY OF THEMSELVES, BY READING,
“‘ UNDERSTAND THAT WHICH HE, WITHOUT AN INTERPRETER,
** COULD NoT,) they are in Scripture PLAIN AND EASY TO BE
“‘ unpERSTOOD. As for those things which at the first are obscure
* and dark, when memory hath laid them up for a time, judg-
“ ment afterwards growing explaineth them. Scripture, there-
*‘ fore, is not so hard, but that THE ONLY READING THEREOF
“MAY GIVE LIFE UNTO WILLING HEARERS.... Surely if we
“ perish, it is not the lack of scribes and learnéd expounders
* that can be our just excuse. The word which saveth our souls
“7 near us: WE NEED FOR KNOWLEDGE BUT TO READ AND LIVE.
ey my?
Lastly, as it respects the fifth point, as to the authority on
which we receive the Scriptures as the word of God, respecting
which Archbishop Laud® and Bishop Stillingfleet* have long
1 Bk.v.ch.22. 2? Bk.v.ch.22. 3 Lavn’s Conference with Fisher, § 16. No. 26.
4 STILLINGFLEET’S Grounds of Protestant Religion, Pt. 1. c. 7, sub fin.
390 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
ago vindicated the Protestant orthodoxy of Hooker against the
misrepresentation of the adherents of Tradition, he speaks
thus ;—
“Scripture, indeed, teacheth things above nature; things
“* which our reason, by itself, could not reach unto. Yet those
* things, also, we believe; knowing, by reason, that the Scrip-
“ ture is the word of God.... What with him [1. 6. Agrippa]
“ did authorize the Prophets, the like with us doth cause the
“vest of the Scripture of God to be of credit.... Scripture
* teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto
“the world by revelation; and it presumeth us taught other-
“wise that itself is divine and sacred. The question, then,
“ being, by what means we are taught this; some answer, that
* to learn it, we have no other way than only Tradition, as namely,
“that so we believe, because both we from our predecessors,
“ and they from theirs, have so received. Bur is THIs ENOUGH ?
“ That which all men’s experience teacheth them, may not in
“ anywise be denied. And by experience we all know, that the
“ first outward motive, leading men so to esteem of the Scripture,
“is the authority of God’s Church. For when we know the
“ whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we
* judge it, even at the first, an impudent thing for any man
“ bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind,
** without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labor
“in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find,
“that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion
“concerning it. So that the former inducement prevailing
“ somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when
“ the very thing hath ministered further reason.’?+ Upon
which passage Archbishop Laud observes, ‘‘ Here then, again, in
“ his [1. e. Hooker’s| judgment, Tradition is the first inducement ;
“but the further reason and ground is the Scripture. And
“ resolution of faith ever settles upon the furthest reason it can ;
* not upon the first inducement.” And Bishop Stillingfleet,—
“Can anything be more plain, if men’s meaning may be
“ gathered from their words, especially when purposely they
“ treat of a subject, than that Hooker makes the authority of
1 Bk. iii. ch. 8.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 391
** the Church the primary inducement to faith, and that rational
“ evidence which discovers itself in the doctrine revealed, to be that
“which it is finally resolved into?” And, moreover, we may
add, he distinctly intimates to us, that Tradition is not enough
to assure us that Scripture is the word of God.
It will throw further light upon his views, however, if we add
the context following the passage given above. “If infidels or
“ atheists,” he says, “ chance at any time to call it in question,
“ this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the
“testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, and our own
“ persuasion, which Scripture itself hath confirmed, may be
““ proved a truth infallible. In which case the antient Fathers,
“ being often constrained to show, what warrant they had so
“much to rely upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to
“ maintain the authority of the books of God by arguments,
“ such as unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable,
“if they judged thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing
“impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs, so
** to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able
“ to deny it, without denying some apparent principle, such as all
“men acknowledge to be true.” +
By these passages, therefore, we may see clearly the meaning
of Hooker in the following :—“ Finally, we all believe, that the
““ Scriptures of God are sacred, and that they have proceeded
“from God; ourselves we assure that we do right well in so
“believing. We have, for this point, a demonstration sound
“ and infallible. But it is not the word of God which doth, or
* possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it his word.
“ For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to all,
“ yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would
“require another Scripture to give credit unto it; neither
“ could we ever come unto any pause whereon to rest our
“assurance this way; so that unless ΒΕΒΙΡΕ Scripture there
“ were something which might assure us that we do well, we
“could not think we do well, no not in being assured that
“ Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of well-doing.”? This
passage, when compared with the preceding, presents no
1 Bk. iii. ch. 8. 2 Bk. ii. ch. 4.
892 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
difficulty ; as is shown, both by Archbishop Laud and Bishop
Stillingfleet.
In the same guarded and judicious way does Hooker speak
on this point, in another place. ‘The voice and testimony of
“the Church,” he says, “acknowledging Scripture to be the
“ law of the living God, is, for the truth and certainty thereof, no
* mean evidence. For if, with reason, we may presume upon
“ things which a few men’s depositions do testify, suppose we
“ that the minds of men are not, both at their first access to
“the school of Christ, exceedingly moved, yea, and for ever
“ afterwards, also confirmed much, when they consider the main
“ consent of all the Churches in the whole world witnessing the
“ sacred authority of Scriptures, ever sithence the first publica-
“ tion thereof even till this present day and hour?” + Doubt-
less, it is an argument of great power, and a testimony which,
in its place, and to a certain extent, is necessary.
Such is the testimony of “the judicious” Hooker respecting
the system under review. And I suppose, indeed, it needs but
few arguments to show, that, however much the Tractators may
have endeavoured, in the first instance, to avail themselves of
Hooker’s great name, he who held Bishop Jewel to be the
worthiest divine that Christendom had produced for centuries,
and they who hold such language respecting the same prelate
as the Tractators now do, cannot have much agreement with one
another on such matters.
Bisuor Morton.
The passage given by Mr. Keble from Bishop Morton, ex-
tracted from his Will, amounts to little more than a statement
of the identity of his creed with that of the Three Creeds, and
the first four General Councils; and is just one of those
passages of doubtful meaning, from the quotation of which Mr.
Keble has obtained some apparent, and but apparent, support
for his cause. I will give him another passage from the same
author still stronger, but by no means supporting his views; as
will clearly be seen, when we come to consider its terms, es-
1 Bk. v. ch. 22.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 893
pecially when viewing it in its connexion with other passages
which I shall afterwards adduce.
“Tt hath been,” he says, “the common and constant profes-
“ sion of all Protestants to stand unto the judgment of Anti-
“* quity for the continuance of the first four hundred years, and
“more, in all things; which appeareth by their undoubted
“ books and testimonies, clearly and universally held in those
“ purest times for necessary doctrines of faith.””+
Now the very fact that he quotes “ all Protestants” as agree-
ing in this, goes some way to prove, that it is not equivalent to
what our opponents maintain ; for I suppose they themselves
would not claim “ all the Protestants,” even of Bishop Morton’s
day, as on their side. No; it amounts to nothing more than
this, that the Protestants, conscious that they had, upon the
whole, the support of Antiquity, and that the Romanists had
not, openly avowed their willingness to be judged by that
standard. Such an appeal to the testimony of Antiquity, was
the great subject of this work of Bishop Morton. But even
there, he speaks so as to show, that the system under review
is altogether opposed to his sentiments.
For the first three points, I would beg the reader’s attention
to the following passages.
“ That which directeth and ordereth man’s soul unto God,
“ and to eternity, is his faith; and the subject-matter of faith
“is a truth revealed by the mouth of God, who only knoweth
“‘ the way unto himself. Which, because these Apologists have
“‘ approprjated unto their Romish party, wisdom would require,
“« that, seeing they undertake to manifest this by certain evi-
“ dence of Antiquity, they should insist especially in that manner
“ of revelation which Christ, the Antient of days, the high and
“ cecumenical Bishop, and the immediate converter of souls,
“ hath commended unto his Church, to wit, the oracles of the
“ sacred Scriptures ; wherein, according to the common consent
“ of antient Fathers, all necessary principles of faith and pre-
* cepts of life, are fully registered. But they endeavour rather
“ to derive a confirmation of their profession from the testimonies
“of succeeding Fathers; not so much presuming thereby, as
1 Catholic Appeal, lib. ii. c. 29. ὃ 5. p. 354.
394 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“‘ may be thought, to evince a demonstration of their religion,
“ as to draw us from the written word, the anchor-hold of faith,
“ whereby all men who have given up their souls unto Christ, must
“ be judged in the day of the Lord. NotwitHstaNnDInG we will-
“ ingly answer this their challenge, and directly proceed in our
“ ¢ Appeal’ against their ‘ Apology.’ ”?! That is, notwithstand-
ing we do not agree with them in thinking it necessary to go to
“ the testimonies of succeeding Fathers” for “ a confirmation of
our profession,’ when we have “the oracles of the sacred Scrip-
tures,” we yet “ willingly answer their challenge,” knowing that
we have Antiquity with us.
Again ; “ Our adversaries, by such their sinister handling of
“ the writings of antient Fathers, and wresting of divine Scrip-
“ tures for erecting a new article of faith, do give us just cause
““ to suspect their profession herein, and IN ALL DOCTRINES OF
“ FAITH, TO ADHERE PRECISELY TO THE WRITTEN WORD, AS
“UNTO THE SUFFICIENT AND INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH.” *
** Such is the partial practice of our adversaries in condemn-
“ing Protestants of impudence for refusing the testimonies,
“ although but of a few ; and yet will he have it held a point of
* learning and wisdom in themselves to reject, as often as they
* list, almost all; which their opposition unto Fathers might seem
κε more tolerable, if herein they did not also cross and thwart
“‘ the express and plain direction of the Spirit of God in the
“ word.” 3
“The antient Fathers, with common consent, do profess and
“‘ adore the sufficiency of Scripture in all doctrines necessarily
* belonging unto points of faith, or precepts of life.’’*
“ What good is it that is required unto an αὐτάρκεια, and full
“ sufficiency in any law, which issueth not abundantly from this
“* sacred fountain of the written word ?”?®
““ We have heard of the confessed uncertainties of many
** traditional points, of the infallibility of the written word unto
** all believers, from the Fathers, so magnifying the sufficiency
“ of the same word in all necessary doctrine, as ‘ without which
) Lib icc. 1. § 1. p.1. 3 Lib. ii. c. 1. § 4. p. 89.
2 Lib. 1. 6. 2. § 15. p. 18. 4 Lib. ii. ο. 25. 8 11. p. 826.
5. Lib. ii. c. 25. § 13. p. 330.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 395
“ nothing may be spoken,’ (Theod. and Gregory,) ‘nothing
“ delivered,’ (Damasc.) without which there is ‘no necessary
“ tradition, (Cyprian,) no true ‘wisdom,’ (August.) ‘no faith,’
« (Jer. and Orig.) without which ‘who shall speak, (Ambr.) and
“ <woe to them that shall speak, (Tertull.) without which it is a
“« «sign of infidelity,’ (Basil.) ‘and of a devilish spirit to speak,’
“ (Theoph.) ; because the Scripture is a ‘ door against thieves,’
“ (Chrysost.) ‘the true balances against all false,’ (August.) the
“ «foundation and pillar of faith,’ (Jer.) the ‘most exact canon
“and rule of truth,’ (Chrys.) the ‘anchor-hold of belief,’
“ (Athanas.). And that therefore our consent must be only from
“ Scriptures (August.), THAT HERETICS MUST BE COMPELLED TO
“ STAND ONLY UNTO ScripTuREs (Tertull.), that he is an ana-
“ thema, (Hilar.) whosoever desireth not that the faith may be
“ tried only by Scriptures, (Athanas.) because they are in them-
“ selves sufficient for our instruction. (Cyril and others.) .....
“ Wherefore we appeal unto the conscience of every Christian
“ to judge, whether it do not deeply concern him to adore the
“ sufficiency of sacred Scripture as the treasure of all truth, the
“ chair of Christ, and highest tribunal of souls upon earth; and
“ whether they who, in their cloven mitres, do profess the
“ understanding and preaching of the doctrine of the two
“‘ written Testaments, could justly refuse that condition which
“ Protestants required of them in the Council of Trent,’ viz.,
“that ‘the Scriptures only might be allowed for the rule of
“ deciding of all doctrines necessary for salvation,’ or whether
* they might justly call this condition unjust ; or rather, whether
“ this refusal be not, in truth, strongly prejudicial against their
“ profession.” ἢ
“ The Romanists are very large in their protestations in this
“ behalf, [i.e. ‘of consenting unto the Fathers’ expositions,’]
“ saying, ‘ When either all, or almost all antient Fathers consent
“in one opinion, or else in the interpretation of any one place
“ of Scripture, they may not be impugned ;’ or thus, ‘ When the
“ ereater part of Fathers do agree in one judgment, we profess
“ this to be a Catholic truth.? And the Bull of Pope Pius the
“ Fourth, in the confirmation of the Council of Trent, pre-
1 Lib. ii. c. 25. § 14. p. 332.
396 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
* seribeth an oath unto all ‘Bishops, Deans, Canons, and all
* that have cure of souls, together with all that enjoy any places
*‘ in monasteries, convents, or houses, and to whatsoever person
“ regular,’ to swear ‘never to receive or use any interpretation
“ of Scripture, which is not according to the uniform consent of
* antient Fathers.’ Never did the antient Jews more boast of
“ their original and descent from Father Abraham, than do the
“5 Romanists glory in their pretended consent of antient Fathers ;
* yet, as the ostentation of the former was condemned of Christ
** as carnal, so this latter may be justly condemned as sophistical.
“ For they affirm, that ‘the Fathers are to be accounted as
** doctors, not as judges, not necessarily to be obeyed, but to be
“ followed, so far as reason shall persuade” THis MIGHT SEEM
** REASONABLE, if they had not bound themselves, by oath, to
** follow their ‘uniform assent ;’ for where there is a necessity
“ of duty challenging the assent, there is no place left for liberty
““ of ‘persuasion by reason.’ 7’!
“ To conclude, we find not any tradition absolutely unwritten,
““ (whether doctrinal or ceremonial,) delivered by the Fathers, to
“‘ be of that nature, as that it ought to be embraced, (this is the
“* Romish profession,) with the like godly affection and reverence,
“ as we do the sacred Scriptures. This we hold to be, in divinity,
** more than a paradox.” * But, of course, if he had supposed,
that ‘there were any such traditions entitled to be received as
** precious Apostolical relics,” this is an observation he could
not have made.
And so a little further on, having noticed various ceremonial
ordinances claiming to be considered Apostolical traditions, he
speaks of “the uncertainty of such like traditions.” ὃ
And noticing the profession of the Romish clergy to interpret
Scripture only according to the “uniform consent of antient
Fathers,” (which is so fully adopted by the Tractators, as that
they make that consent part of the Rule of faith,) he says,
“ which they neither can, nor do perform ;” adding, in the margin,
“ For what one of a thousand doth read all the Fathers, to try
their consent in all interpretations ?” 4
1 Lib. 2. c. 29. ὃ 1. pp. 347, 8. 2 Lib. ii. c. 25. § 8. p. 323.
3 Lib. ii. c. 25. § 10. p. 326. 4 Lib. ii. c. 29. § 8. p. 357.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 897
On the fourth point, as to the obscurity of Scripture, the fol-
lowing may suffice. |
“ This displayeth the now Romish inhibition to be but indeed
“a pernicious innovation; whereby Rome, of a mother, is
“ become ἃ stepdame; dehorting her people from the reading
“ of Scripture, because, forsooth, of the marvellous ‘ obscurities’
“ thereof. Which argument doth fight against the conscience,
“ first, of their own Jesuit Acosta, who saith, that ‘our gracious
“ God hath marvellously provided in holy writ that the most
“yude reading in humility may profit thereby ;᾽ secondly,
“ against experience,—‘ I have seen, saith he, some men utterly
* unlearned, and scarce knowing Latin, who have gathered out
“ of the Scripture such profound knowledge, that I marvelled
“at them; but the spiritual man judgeth all things’ ” +
On the subject of the fifth position, he had not occasion to
speak ; but, of course, this falls with those that have preceded
it; because it is not the truth or validity of the tradition re-
lating to matters of fact, as to the genuineness, &c. of the
sacred books, or the ¢ruth of the tradition respecting the doctrine
of the inspiration of Scripture, that is called in question; or
that such tradition is an introductory motive to induce us to
believe that doctrine; but only whether this or any Church-
tradition is a divine informant, an authoritative testimony,
binding the conscience to immediate assent; which it is
evident from the preceding extracts, that Bishop Morton did
not hold it to be.
Bisuor Hatt,
The extract given from Bishop Hall by Mr. Keble, consists
of two sentences occurring in a sermon of his preached before
Convocation in 1623,” which prove nothing more than that “ we,
of the Reformed Church,” receive all those points which are
maintained in “ the primitive Creeds,” “the four General
Councils,” and by “the concordant judgment of the Fathers
for the first six hundred years from Christ.” But this is not
1 Lib. iv. c. 18. § 4. pp. 524, 5. 3 Works, ed. Pratt, vol. v. p. 148 et seq.
398 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
the point in question. It is a matter totally distinct from that
which Mr. Keble adduces it to support. This fact will be
admitted by many who are altogether opposed to those views in
support of which he urges it. And such will be found to be the
case as it respects Bishop Hall, whose sentiments on the points
now in question are very clearly manifested in other parts of
his writings.
As it respects the first point, viz. the divine origin of
Church-tradition, the following extracts will show Bishop
Hall’s mind.
* As for those traditions which they do thus lift up to an unjust
“ competition with the Written Word, our Saviour hath before-
* hand humbled them into the dust. ‘ In vain do they worship me,
* teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ Matt. xv. 9.
« Making this a sufficient cause of abhorring both the persons
““ and the services of those Jews, that they thrust human tradi-
* tions into God’s chair, and respected them equally with the
“ institutions of God. Cardinal Bellarmin would shift it off with
“ @ distinction of traditions. ‘These were such, saith he, quas
* acceperant a recentioribus, &c. as they had received from some
“ later hands ; whereof some were vain, some others pernicious ;
“ not such as they received from Moses and the Prophets.’ ....
“ But this is to cast mists before the eyes of the simple ; for who
“ sees not our Saviour’s challenge is general, to TRADITIONS THUS
““ ADVANCED, not to these or those traditions? And where he
“ speaks of some later hands, he had forgotten that our Saviour
“upon the Mount tells him ἐῤῥέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις : that these
“ faulted traditions were of old. .... Let them be able to deduce
“ any Evangelical tradition from the Apostles, and we are ready
§ to embrace it with all observance.” }
“ As for oral traditions, what certainty can there be in them?
“ What foundation of truth can be laid upon the breath of
“man? How do we see the reports vary of those things which
“ our eyes have seen done! How do they multiply in their
** passage, and either grow or die upon hazards!’ 5
“ What is grounded upon the divine word must needs be
1 Old Religion, ch. 12. § 2. Works, ed. Pratt, vol. 9. p. 288.
2 Ib. 8 3.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 399
“ irrefragably true, that which upon human traditions either
“‘ must or may be erroneous.” ὦ
Church-tradition, then, is no divine informant, according to
Bishop Hall.
Let us proceed to the second and third points.
“ What can be more full and clear,” says the bishop, “ than
“that of St. Austin? ‘In these things which are openly laid
“forth in Scripture are found all matters that contain either
“ faith or manners.’ Cardinal Bellarmin’s elusion is not a
* little prejudicial to his own cause. He tells us, that St. Austin
“ speaks of those points which are simply necessary to salvation
* for all men, all which he acknowledges to be written by the
« Apostles; ‘ But, besides these there are many other things,’
“ saith he, ‘ which we have only by Tradition.’”” [Which is just
what our authors say. And how does Bishop Hall meet it ?
Thus.] “ Will it not therefore hence follow, that the common
* sort of Christians need not look at his traditions 2”? *
Again ; “ Even the very light of reason shows us, that as there
“is a God, so that he is a most wise and most just God.
“ Needs, therefore, must it follow, that if this most just and
“ wise God will give a word, whereby to reveal himself and his
“¢ will to mankind, it must be a perfect word; for, as his wis-
« dom knows what is fit for his creature to know of himself, so
* his justice will require nothing of the creature but what he
* hath enabled him to know and do. Now, then, since he re-
*‘ quires us to know him, to obey him, it must needs follow,
“ that he hath left us so exquisite a rule of this knowledge and
“* obedience as cannot admit of any defect, or any supplement.
““ THIS RULE CAN BE NO OTHER THAN HIS WRITTEN WORD ;
“ therefore written that it might be preserved entire for this
“ purpose to the last date of time.” #
“ How miserably,” be sarcastically remarks, “‘ were every
“ one of the learned Fathers of the Church blinded, that they
* could never either see or acknowledye any other Rule of faith !’?4
1 Sermon on “ The best bargain.” Sept. 21, 1623.
2 Old. Rel. ch. 12. § 1.
3 Tb. § 3.
4 No Peace with Rome, § 4,
400 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
And so in his sermon to the Synod of Dort he says, “ No
“ one can doubt, that the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Sacred
“ Scripture, ought to be the Judge of Controversies.” }
The second of these passages also clearly shows us his opinion
as to the notion that there are any important revealed points
not contained in Scripture; for, if “ the written word” is “ so
“‘ exquisite a rule of this knowledge and obedience as cannot
“ admit of any defect, or any supplement,” there cannot be any
important revealed truths not conveyed to us in it, and for
which we are indebted only to Tradition.
The following, however, are perhaps still more clear on the
point. “St. Augustine’s words [alluding to the passage quoted
“‘ above] are full and comprehensive, expressing all those things
“ which contain either faith or manners, whether concerning gover-
“ nors or PEOPLE. If now they can find out anything that belongs not
“ either to belief or action, we do willingly give it up to their tra-
“ ditions, but ALL THINGS WHICH PERTAIN TO EITHER OF THOSE
“ ARE OPENLY COMPRIZED IN Scripture.” ‘“ Whatsoever is
“ not written, by this rule [i. 6. one quoted from Tertullian]
“ may not be obtruded to our belief.” *
On the alleged obscurity of the Scriptures urged in the fourth”
position, his opinion may be judged from the following ;—
ἐς Yet one step more. Our question is, Whether the Scerip-
“ture be easy or most obscure, and whether in all essential
“ points it do not INTERPRET ITSELF, so as What is hard in one
“ place is openly laid forth in another. Hear the judgment of
“ the Old Church anv ours. ‘All things are clear and plain,
“and nothing contrary in the Scriptures,’ saith Epiphanius.
“« «Those things which seem doubtfully and obscurely spoken in
“ some places of Scripture, are expounded by them which in
“ other places are open and plain,’ saith Basil. What could
“ Calvin and Luther say more?”
And having quoted several other passages from Augustine
and Chrysostom, he concludes with the two following from the
latter. ‘He [i. 6. Chrysostom] makes this difference betwixt
1 “ Judicem esse debere controversiarum Spiritum Sanctum in sacra Scriptura
loquentem nemo est qui ambigat.” Conc. ad Syn. Dordr.
2 Old Rel. ch. 12. § 1.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 401
“ the philosophers and Apostles, ‘The philosophers speak ob-
_ “scurely, but the Apostles and Prophets, saith he, ‘ contrarily
* make all things delivered by them clear and manifest ; and,
* as the common teachers of the world, have so expounded all things,
“ that EVERY MAN may OF HIMSELF by BARE READING learn those
* things which are spoken.’ Yea, lastly, so far he goes in this
* point as that he asketh, ‘ Wherefore needeth a preacher? all
“ things are clear and plain in the divine Scriptures ; but be-
“cause ye are delicate hearers, and seek delight in hearing,
** therefore ye seek for preachers.’ ” !
“ It is not to be imagined that the same word of God which
* speaks for ail other truths should not speak for itself. How
* fully doth it display its own sufficiency and perfection! < All
““ Scripture,’ saith the Chosen Vessel, ‘is given by inspiration
“of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor-
“rection, for instruction in righteousness.’ 2 Tim. ui. 16,
“ «Profitable, saith the Cardinal, ‘but not sufficient. Many
“things may avail to that end whereto they suffice not; so
“meat is profitable to nourish, but without natural heat it
*‘nourisheth not.2. Thus he. Hear yet what followeth,—
« «That the man of God may be perfected and throughly
“ furnished unto all good works.’ 2 Tim. i. 17. Lo, it is so
“ profitable to all these services, that thereby it perfects a divine,
“‘ MUCH MORE AN ORDINARY CuristT1an. That which is so
“ profitable as to cause perfection is abundantly sufficient, and
“ must needs have full perfection zn itself. That which can per-
“ fect the teacher is sufficient for THE LEARNER.” ”
Against the /ast position, as to our receiving the Scriptures on
the authority of Church-tradition, the following may suffice.
“ This is yet most shamefully injuricus, to deny unto the
* word of God credit of itself, αὐτοπιστίαν ; and so to hang the
*“ Scriptures upon the Church, that they must needs beg all their
“authority from the voices of men.”*® This remark, I need
hardly observe, is as forcible against the views of the Tractators
on this point, as against those of the Romanists. And in his
“ Serious dissuasive from Popery,”’ (div. 2. ὃ 5.), he quotes
1 Serious Diss. from Popery, Div. 2. ὃ 8.
2 Old. Rel. ch. 12. § 2. 3 No Peace with Rome ὃ 4,
VOL. ΠῚ. DD
4.02 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
several passages from Augustine and Chrysostom, showing that,
in their view, the Scriptures are not to be received ‘on the
authority of the Church.”
Can it be a question, then, as to what would have been
Bishop Hall’s sentiments respecting the system under consi-
deration ?
ArcuBisHop Lavup.
The next witness whose testimony we propose to examine is
Archbishop Laud, and there can be little doubt that the Arch-
bishop took tolerably high views of Church-authority, and its
correlative points, and accordingly he is a great favorite with
the Tractators. Mr. Keble has, therefore, given us a passage
from his Conference with Fisher the Jesuit ; a passage, however,
in which there is not one word about Tradition from beginning to
end. And this is the more extraordinary, because in this very
work the Archbishop has entered somewhat fully into this ques-
tion of Tradition ; and if it shall turn out, that the views of the
Archbishop are entirely opposed to Mr. Keble’s, then I think
that the reader will agree with me in thinking that Mr. Keble’s
fondness for the notions he has imbibed on this subject has
betrayed him into much unfairness. His reference, moreover,
in this case would be singularly unfortunate, for if Archbishop
Laud opposes his views, @ fortiori are they contrary to those of
the great body of the English clergy on such a point.
Now, as to the first pomt, the Archbishop says,—“ Even in
* those fundamental things in which the whole universal Church
“ neither doth nor can err, yet even there her authority is not
“ divine, because she delivers those supernatural truths by pro-
“ mise of assistance, yet tyed to means ; and not by any special
“ immediate revelation, which is necessarily required to the very
“ least deyree of Divine authority. And therefore our worthies
“do not only say, but prove, ‘that a// the Church’s constitu-
“ tions are of the nature of human law.’ And some among you,
“ not unworthy for their learning, prove it at large, ‘ that all the
“ Church’s Testimony, or Voice, or Sentence, (call it what you
“ will,) is but suo modo or aliquo modo, not simply, but ina
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 403
“ manner divine.’ Yea, and A. C. himself, after all his debate,
“ comes tothat and no further, ‘That the Tradition of the Church
“is, at least in some sort, divine and infallible.’ Now that
“ which is divine but in a sort or manner, be it the Church’s
“ manner, is aliguo modo non divina, in a sort not divine. But
“this great principle of faith, the ground and proof of what-
“ soever else is of faith, [viz. that Scripture is the word of God, |
“ cannot stand firm upon a proof that is and is not, in a manner
* and not in a manner, divine.” }
“You have been often enough told (were truth and not the
“ maintaining of a party the thing you seek for,) that if you
“ will show us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his
“ Prophets and Apostles, we will acknowledge it to be divine
“ and infallible.”? Here the ground taken by the Archbishop
is manifestly what we contend for, viz. that there is nothing
remaining to us which can be shown to be the word of God but
the Scriptures ; as is confirmed also by the following. “ There-
‘fore Tradition must be taken two ways. Either as it is the
“* Church’s act delivering, or the thing thereby delivered, AND THEN
“IT IS HUMAN AUTHORITY OR FROM 17, and unable infallibly
“ to warrant divine faith, or to be the object of it. Or else, as
“ it is the unwritten word of God, and then WHEREVER IT CAN
“ΒΒ MADE TO APPEAR SO, it is of divine and infallible autho-
“yvity, no question. But then I would have A. C. consider
« where he is in this‘particular. He tells us, ‘ We must know
“ infallibly that the books of Holy Scripture are divine, and
“ that this must be done by unwritten Tradition, but so as that
“ this tradition is the word of God unwritten.’ Now let him
“but prove that this or any tradition which the Church of
“ Rome stands upon is the word of God though unwritten, and
* the business is ended. But A. C. must not think that because
“ the Tradition of the Church tells me these books are Verbum
“ Dei, God’s Word, and that I do both honour and believe this
“ tradition, that therefore this tradition itself is God’s word too,
“ and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to work this belief in
1 Relation of the Conference between Laud and Fisher, § 16. n. 6. 4th ed.
1686. p. 42.
2 Ib. § 16. n. 7. pp. 43, 4.
DD 2
404. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ me.”1 Here we see that even in that Church-tradition that
Scripture is the word of God, the Archbishop utterly repudiates
the idea that such a tradition is to be received as an unwritten
word of God, a divine informant, or as “ sufficient and infallible
to work belief in him,” of what it testifies.
These extracts, therefore, of themselves form also a complete
answer to our opponents on the fifth poit; but for that part of
the question, I shall add to them presently.
The reader will see the importance of such extracts from
Archbishop Laud, and therefore I make no apology for adding
more. Ifsuch passages from Archbishop Laud do not settle
the question as to the opposition of the views of the Tractators
on this matter to those of the English Church, it is difficult to
conceive what will do so.
“ For the Tradition of the Church, then,” he says, “ certain it
“is we must distinguish the Church before we can judge right
“ of the validity of the Tradition. For if the speech be of the
* prime Christian Church, the Apostles, disciples, and such as
“ had IMMEDIATE REVELATION from heaven, no question but
“ the voice and tradition of this Church is divine, not aliquo
“‘ modo, in a sort, but simply, and the word of God from them
“is of like validity, written or delivered. And against this
“ tradition (of which kind this, ‘ That the books of Scripture is
“the word of God,’ is the most general and uniform) the Church
“ of England never excepted. And when St. Augustine said, ‘I
“would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the
“ Catholic Church moved me,’.... some of your own will not
“endure should be understood save of the Church in the time
“* of the Apostles only, and some of the Church in general, not
“excluding after ages, but sure to include Christ and his
“ Apostles. And the certainty is there, abundance of certainty
“ in itself, BUT HOW FAR THAT IS EVIDENT TO US SHALL AFTER
“appear. But this will not serve your turn. The Tradition
“of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the
“primitive. But the contrary to this is proved before [referring
“to the passage first quoted], because this voice of the present
“ Church is not simply divine.’?
1 ΤΡ. § 16. ἡ. 9. p. 45. 2 Th. § 16. n. 20, 21. p. 52.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 405
And let not Mr. Keble deceive himself here as to the mean-
ing of the Archbishop, from his use of the phrase “the present
Church ;” for what he means by it is, the Church in its post-
apostolic state, as is evident, not merely from the conclusion of
the above sentence, but because, in another passage,! he quotes
Cyril and Augustine as speaking of the present Church, and
uses the phrase with reference to the time of Basil.?
And the distinction which the Archbishop makes between
the Tradition of the Apostles, or the Church when under their
guidance, and the Tradition of the post-apostolic Church, is an
important one. The former only he allows to be divine, the
latter he affirms to rest upon the authority of Scripture. “I
‘« have often,” he says, “ heard some wise men say, That the Jesuit
“in the Church of Rome, and the Precise Party in the Reformed
“ Churches, agree in many things, though they would seem most
“to differ. And surely this is one, for both of them differ
“ extremely about Tradition. The one in magnifying it, and
“exalting it into Divine authority, the other vilifymg and
“ depressing it almost beneath human. And yet even in these
“ different ways both agree’in this consequent, ‘ That the ser-
“9 mons and preachings by word of mouth of the lawfully-sent
“ nastors and doctors of the Church, are able to breed in us
“¢ divine and infallible faith.? Nay, ‘are the very word of God.”
“For [adds the Archbishop here in a note] THis A. C. says
EXPRESSLY oF TRADITION.”> He would have been rather
more surprised to hear such language from divines of the
Church of England and himself quoted as supporting their
views.
Again ; having spoken of “ the Tradition of the Church of the
Apostles themselves,” he adds, “As for the Tradition of after
“ages, in and about which miracles and divine power were
“not so evident, we believe them (by Gandavo’s full con-
« fession) because they do not preach other things than those
« former, the Apostles, left IN SCRIPTIS CERTISSIMIS, IN MOST
“ ceRTAIN Scripture. And it appears by men in the middle
“ ages, that these writings were vitiated in nothing, by the con-
“ cordant consent in them of all succeeders to our own time.’’*
. § 16. n. 33. p. 66. 2 Tb. § 16. n. 26. p. 59.
arn
1 ΤΡ
8 ΤΌ θ. ἡ. 81. p. 64. 4 Tb. § 16. n. 32. p. 66.
406 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
« That we must rely upon this Tradition [i. 6. the Tradition of
“the post-apostolic Church] as divine and infallible, and able to
“ breed in us divine and infallible faith, as A. C. adds, is A PRO-
ἐς POSITION WHICH, IN THE TIMES OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH,
*“ WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED VERY DANGEROUS, AS INDEED
“apis. For I would fain know why leaning too much upon
“ Tradition may not mislead Christians as well as it did the
“ Jews.” “Now, since we go the same way with you so far
“as you go right, and a better way than you where you go
** wrong, WE NEED NOT ADMIT ANY OTHER WORD OF GOD THAN
“we po.”’* “Jf this company of men [i. 6. the Roman bishop
“‘ and his clergy] be infallibly assisted, whence is it that this
“very company have erred so dangerously as they have, not
““ only in some other things, but even in this particular, by
“‘ equalling the Tradition of the present Church to the written
“word of God ? WHICH IS A DOCTRINE UNKNOWN TO THE
‘ PRIMITIVE CHURCH, AND WHICH FRETS UPON THE VERY
* FOUNDATION ITSELF BY JUSTLING WITH 1T;” where by the
present Church he means, as before, the post-apostolic Church,
as is evident from his reference to Basil, in his note on this
passage.®
So much for Archbishop Laud’s advocacy of Church-Tradition
as a divine informant.
But it may be said, the Archbishop speaks also of the Tradi-
tion of the Apostles, and he calls that divine. True, and who
will not agree with him in so doing? But he also added,
“ How far that is evident to us shall after appear.” Now as
far as that Tradition was oral, it can come to us only through the
medium of Church-tradition ; and not only does the Archbishop
deny the divine authority of that Church-tradition, but he denies
it in that very point in which it is ‘‘ most general and uniform,”
and claims, more than in all others, to be considered as delivering
the prime Apostolical Tradition, viz. in the point that Scripture
is the word of God.
That he considers that that which comes to us as Apostolical
Tradition, on the authority of Church-tradition, has not divine
1 Th. § 18. n. 4. note, p. 78, 2 Tb. § 19. n. 2. p. 82.
3 Ib. § 16. n. 26. p. 59.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 407
authority, is evident from the following passage. He is still
speaking as to the authority upon which we receive Scripture as
the word of God, and having observed, “ We use the Tradition
“of the present Church as the first motive, not as the last
“resolution of our faith ; we resolve only into prime Tradition
“ Apostolical and Scripture itself,’ he adds,—* Secondly, you
“ pretend, we do not nor cannot know the prime Apostolical
“ Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church, and that,
“ therefore, if the Tradition of the present Church be not God’s
* unwritten word and divine, we cannot yet know Scripture to
“ be Scripture by a divine authority. Well! suppose I could
“not know the prime Tradition divine! but by the present
“ Church, yet it doth not follow that therefore I cannot know
* Scripture to be the word of God by a divine authority, because
“ Divine Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove it. For
* suppose I had not, nor could have, full assurance of Aposto-
* lical Tradition Divine, yet the moral persuasion, reason, and
“ force of the present Church, is ground enough to move any
“‘ reasonable man that it is fit he should read the Scripture, and
“‘ esteem very reverently and highly of it. And this once done,
“ the Scripture hath then zm and home arguments enough to put
“a soul that hath but ordinarily grace out of doubt that Scrip-
“ ture is the word of God, infallible and divine.” ?
Here it is evident, that the Archbishop grants, that that which
comes to us as “ Apostolical Tradition Divine” on the authority
of Church-tradition, has not divine authority ; and that if the
Apostolical tradition that Scripture is the word of God could
only be so conveyed to us, the report we thus have of it would
not have divine authority. But the Archbishop evidently
thought, that it could be otherwise conveyed to us, namely, (as
other passages show him to mean,) in the declarations of the
Apostles in Scripture, that they spake by the Holy Ghost. That
he is referring to this latter tradition is evident from the follow-
ing among other passages ;—“ The Scriptures saying from the
1 In the edition from which I quote, that of 1686 fol., it runs, “ the prime tra-
dition to be divine.” But the words ἐο be appear so manifestly an erratum, that
I have left them out above. However, if any reader prefer the passage with
them, let him so read it if he will.
2 Tb. § 16. n. 22, 23. p. 55.
408 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ mouths of the prophets, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ and from the
“ mouths of the Apostles, that ‘the Holy Ghost spake by them,’
“are at least as able and as fit to bear witness to their own
“ verity, as the Church is to bear witness to her own traditions
“by bare saying they come from the Apostles.”! “ The Jews
‘“ never had, nor can have, any other proof that the Old Testa-
“ment is the word of God than we have of the New. For
“ theirs was delivered by Moses and the prophets, and ours was
“ delivered by the Apostles, which were prophets too. The
“ Jews did believe their Scripture by a Divine authority. For
“so the Jews argue themselves ; St. John 1x. ‘ We know that
“ God spake with Moses.’ And that therefore they could no
“more err in following Moses, than they could in followmg
‘God himself. And our Saviour seems to infer as much,
* St. John v., where he expostulates with the Jews thus, ‘If
*‘ you believe not Moses his writings, how should you believe
“me?? Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses ?
“ How? Why, apparently the same way that-is before set down.
“ First, by Tradition. So St. Chrysostom; ‘We know; why,
“by whose witness do you know? By the testimony of our
* ancestors.’ But he speaks not of their immediate ancestors, but
“ ther prime, which were prophets, and whose testimony was
* divine, into which, NAMELY THEIR WRITINGS, the Jews did
“ resolve their faith. .... They resolved their faith higher, and
“ into a more inward principle, than an ear to their immediate
“ ancestors and their tradition.” ἢ That is, the prime prophe-
tical tradition contained in the writings of the Old Testament,
that those writings were the word of God, was that into which the
Jews resolved their faith as alone of divine authority; and in
the same way the prime Apostolical tradition contained in the
writings of the New Testament, that those writings are the word
of God, is alone of divine authority with us on this point, and
not that record of this tradition which the post-apostolic Church
has delivered to us.
Now from these extracts it clearly follows, that Archbishop
Laud did not hold Church-tradition to be any part of the Rule
of faith, for that cannot be a part of the Rule of faith in things
1 Th. § 16. n. 10. p. 46. 5. Ib. ὃ 18. n. δὲ p. 79,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 409
belonging to God which is not a divine informant, and has not
divine authority ; and indeed he directly asserts, that he admits
“no infallible rule but Scripture only.”! And so again, “I
“ admit no ordinary rule left in the Church of divine and infal-
“ lible verity, and so of faith, but the Scripture.” ?
That he would have advocated the utility of Church-tradition
to lead men to the acceptance of the truth, that he accepted
the interpretation given to Scripture by the general testimony
of the best antient ecclesiastical writers, and was willing to
have his orthodoxy, and that of his Church, judged by it, are
points readily granted, but it was not any part of his Rule of
faith.
On the second, third, and fourth points, therefore, maintained
by the Tractators, these extracts show that Archbishop Laud is
opposed to them.
Nay, as it respects the fourth point, that Church-tradition is
a necessary part of the Rule of faith in the fundamental articles,
on account of the obscurity of Scripture, he expresses himself
thus strongly against such a notion.
« Now A. Ὁ. would know what is to be done for reuniting
“ of a Church divided in doctrine of the Faith, when this
“ yemedy by a General Council cannot be had; Sure Christ
* our Lord, saith he, hath provided some rule, some judge, in
“such and such like cases, to procure unity and certainty of
“ belief. I believe so too; for he hath left an Infallible Rule,
“the Scripture ; and that by the manifest places in it, WHICH
“ NEED NO DISPUTE, NO EXTERNAL JUDGE, és able to settle unity
“and certainty of belief in necessaries to salvation...... And
“ therefore A. C. does not well to make that a crime, that the
“ Protestants admit no infallible rule but the Scripture only,
“ or, as he (I doubt, not without some scorn) terms it, beside
“ only Scripture. For what need is there of another, since
“this is most infallible, and the same which the antient Church
“ of Christ admitted? And if it were sufficient for the antient
«« Church to guide them, and direct their Councils, why should
«© it be now held insufficient for us, at least till a free General
“ Council may be had? And it hath both the conditions which
1 Tb. ὃ 26. n. 4. p. 129. 2 Ib. ὃ 38. ἢ. 5. p. 215.
4.10 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
““ Bellarmine requires to a rule, namely, that it be certain, and
* that it be known. “ For if it be not certain, it is no rule;
“and if it be not known, it is no rule to us. Now the
“ Romanists dare not deny but this rule is certain; and that it
“ts sufficiently known in the manifest places of it, and such
“as are necessary to salvation, none of the antients did ever
*« deny ; so there’s an infallible rule. Nor need there be such
“ fear of a private spirit in these manifest things, WHICH BEING
“ BUT READ OR HEARD TEACH THEMSELVES.”! ‘ The first
* immediate fundamental points of faith without which there is
“no salvation, as they cannot be proved by reason, so neither
** need they be determined by any Council, nor ever were they
** attempted, they are so plain set down in the Scripture.”*
As it respects the fifth position, we have already quoted suf-
ficient to show how totally the Archbishop was opposed. to it ;
but it may be worth while to add one or two more extracts on
that point, to show more fully the precise nature of his views
respecting it.
“IT doubt,’ he says, “ this question, ‘ How do you know
“* Scripture to be Scripture? hath done more harm than you
“ will ever be able to help by Tradition? But I must follow
“ that way which you draw me.”> «It seems to me very ne-
** cessary,* that we be able to prove the books of Scripture to
‘« be the word of God by some authority that is absolutely divine.
«For if they be warranted unto us by any authority less than
“ divine, then all things contained in them, which have no
“ greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read,
‘are not objects of divine belief. And that once granted will
‘* enforce us to yield, that all the articles of Christian belief have
*“no greater assurance than human or moral faith or credulity
“can afford. An authority, then, simply divine, must make
«* good the Scriptures’ infallibility, at least in the last resolution
“ of our faith in that point. This authority cannot be any tes-
1 Tb. § 26. n. 4. 5. pp. 129, 30. 2 ΤΌ. § 33. ἡ. 5. p. 165.
3 Ib. § 16. n. 1. p. 38.
4 Here the Archbishop adds in a note,—“ And this is so necessary, that Bellar-
mine confesses, that if Tradition, which he relies upon, be not divine, he and his
can have no faith. Non habemus fidem. Fides enim verbo Dei nititur. L. 4.
De Verbo Dei. c. 4. §. At si ita est.”
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 411
ἐς timony or voice of the Church alone. For the Church con-
“ sists of men subject to error; and no one of them since the
“ Apostles’ times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure
‘of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived ;
“ and all the parts being all liable to mistaking, and fallible, the
“ whole cannot possibly be infallible in and of itself, and privi-
“ leged from being deceived in some things or other. And even
«in those fundamental things in which the whole universal
“ Church neither doth nor can err, yet even there her authority
‘is not divine, because she delivers those supernatural truths
“ by promise of assistance, yet tied to means, and not by any
ἐς special immediate revelation, which is necessarily required to
“ the very least degree of divine authority.”! “ Tradition of
“ the present Church is the first moral motive to belief. But
“ the belief itself, That the Scripture is the word of God, rests
“‘ ypon the Scripture.’ And he adds, in a note, “ Orig. 4. περὶ
“ ἀρχῶν, c. 1, went this way, yet was he a great deal nearer the
* prime Tradition than we are. For being to prove that the
“ Scriptures were inspired from God, he saith, ‘ De hoc assig-
“ nabimus ex ipsis divinis Scripturis, que nos competenter
“ moverint,’ &c.””* * When, therefore, the Fathers say, ‘ We
“ have the Scriptures by Tradition,’ or the like, either they mean
“< the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it, and there
“ when it is known to be such [the italics are the Archbishop’s]
“we may resolve our faith; or if they speak of the present
“ Church, then they mean that the Tradition of it is that by
“ which we first receive the Scripture, as by an according means
“ to the prime Tradition. But because it is not simply divine,
“ we cannot resolve our faith into it, nor settle our faith upon
* it, till it resolve itself into the prime Tradition of the Apostles
“ or the Scripture, or both; and there we rest with it. And
“ you cannot show an ordinary consent of Fathers, nay can you,
“ or any of your Quarter, show any one Father of the Church,
“ Greek or Latin, that ever said, we are to resolve our faith that
“ Scripture is the word of God into the Tradition of the present
“ Church?” “ So then the way lies thus (as far as it appears
1 Tb. § 16. n. 6. p. 42. 2 Ib. § 16. n. 21. p. 54.
3 Ib. § 16. n. 33. p. 66.
4.12 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“to me); The credit of Scripture to be divine resolves finally
“into that faith which we have touching God himself, and in
“the same order. For as that, so this hath three main grounds
“to which all other are reducible. The first is, the Tradition of
*‘ the Church, and this leads us to a reverent persuasion of it.
“* The second is, the light of nature, and this shows us how ne-
“ cessary such a revealed learning is, and that no other way it
“can be had. Nay more, that all proofs brought against any
“point of faith neither are nor can be demonstrations, but
“soluble arguments. The third is, the light of the text itself,
“ in conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God im-
“‘ wardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of
“ the sufficiency of all three unto us. And then, and not be-
“ fore, we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God,
“ both by divine and by infallible proof. But our certainty is by
“ faith, and so voluntary, not by knowledge of such principles
“as in the light of nature can enforce assent whether we will or
“no.” “ Certain it is, that by human authority, consent, and
“ proof, a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is
“ the word of God, by an acquired habit of faith, cui non subest
“ falsum, under which nor error nor falsehood zs. But he can-
* not be assured infallibly, by divine faith, cui subesse non potest
* falsum, into which no falsehood can come, but by a divine
“ testimony. This testimony is absolute in Scripture itself, de-
“ livered by the Apostles for the word of God, and so sealed
“ to our souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost. That which
“ makes way for this as an introduction and outward motive, is
“ the Tradition of the present Church.”? “ Tradition doth but
morally and probably confirm the authority of Scripture.” ὃ
So also as to the accuracy of our copies of the Scriptures, the
Archbishop says, “As it [i.e. Tradition] is the first moral in-
“ ducement to persuade that Scripture is the word of God, so is
“it also the first but moral still that the Bible we now have isa
“ true copy of that which was first written. But then, as in the
“ former, so in this latter for the true copy, the last resolution
“ of our faith cannot possibly rest upon the naked Tradition of
1 Ib. ὃ 16. n. 34. punct. 9. p, 74. 2 Tb. ὃ 19. ἡ. 1. pp. 80, 81.
3 Ib. § 16. n. 31. p. 63.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK, 413
“ the present Church, but must by and with it go higher to
“ other helps and assurances. Where I hope A. C. will confess
“ we have greater helps to discover the truth or falsehood of a copy
“ than we have means to look into a tradition ; or especially to
“ sift out this truth, That it was a divine and infallible revela-
*‘ tion by which the originals of Scripture were first written ;
“ that being far more the subject of this inquiry than the copy,
“ which according to art and science may be examined by former
“« preceding copies close up to the very Apostles’ times.”1 “ The
“ Scripture being put in writing is a thing visibly existent, and
“ if any error be in the print, it is easily corrigible by former
“copies. Tradition is not so easily observed, nor so safely
kept.?? 3 :
I might add other points of disagreement between Arch-
bishop Laud and the Tractators, not unimportant; such, for
instance, as that General Councils may err against “ funda-
mental verity,” though not “ easily ;”° and the jealousy of the
Tractators of the term Protestant being applied to the Church
of England, while the Archbishop expressly applies that ap-
pellation to her, and uniformly includes her as part of the
Protestant Body. “ The Church of England,” he says, “ ts
Protestant too.” * But into these points our limits forbid us
to enter.
The extracts given above, then, clearly show, that at least in
all the main points of the system under review the Archbishop
was entirely opposed to the views of the Tractators,
Dr. Tuomas JAcKsoN.
The next author to whose testimony I would draw the attention
of the reader, is that learned and able divine, Dr. Thomas
Jackson. The extract which Mr. Keble has given us from his
writings certainly cannot be said to be an unfair one, for testi-
mony more explicit and direct than it contains against the
“ system under review, the most decided opponent of that system
could hardly desire. For imstance, let the reader observe the
following passages, taken from that extract: “ Our Church,
1 Tb. § 16. n. 30. p. 63. 2 Th. § 16. n. 27. pp. 59, 60.
3 Th. § 32. n. 5. p. 178. 4 Tb. § 35. n. 6. punct. 4. p. 192.
414 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
*‘ according to Vincentius his rule, admits a growth or profi-
“ ciency in faith, in that it holds not only those propositions
“‘ which are expressly contained in Scripture, but such as may
** by necessary consequence be deduced out of them for points of
* faith, and this growth is still in eodem genere, from the same
“root. Other points of faith besides these our Church admitteth
** none, but ties even her Prelates and Governors to obtrude no
“ other doctrines as points of faith upon their auditors, than
“such as are either expressly contained in Scriptures, or may
“ infallibly be deduced from them.” (p. 21.) “The second addi-
“ tion made by the Roman Church unto the antient canon of
*“‘ faith is a transcendent one and illimited; and that is, the
“ making of Ecclesiastical Tradition to be an integral part of the
“ Canon of faith. TH1s DOTH NOT ONLY POLLUTE BUT UNDERMINE
“ THE WHOLE FABRIC OF THE HOLY PRIMITIVE AND CATHOLIC
ἐς ἙΑΤΤΗ.᾽ (p. 23.) And lest the Tractators should say, that this
only refers to Romish traditions which have no ground in Scrip-
ture, not to Church-tradition as the expounder of Scripture, let
us observe what follows ;—“ We affirm with Antiquity, and in
“‘ particular with Vincentius Lirinensis, that the Canon of
“ Scripture is a Rule of faith, perfect for quantity, AND SUFFI-
“‘ CIENT FOR QUALITY ; that is, it contains all things in it that
“ are necessary to salvation, or requisite to be contained in any
“ Rule; and so contains them as they may be believed and under-
“< stood without relying on any other rule or authority equivalent
“« to them in certainty, or more authentic in respect of us than the
““ Scriptures are. The modern Romish Church denies the Canon
“ of Scripture to be perfect and complete in respect of its quan-
tity, or sufficient for its quality or efficacy.” (p. 23.) “ When
“ we reject Ecclesiastical Tradition from being any part of the Rule
“ of faith, we do not altogether deny the authority or use of it.
“ Howbeit that Ecclesiastical Tradition, whereof there was such
“ excellent use in the primitive Church, was not unwritten Tra-
“ dition. .... That Ecclesiastical Tradition which Vincentius
“ς Lirinensis so much commends, did-especially consist in the con-
“ fessions or registers of particular Churches. Now the unani-
1 How far this is correct, we are not here concerned to inquire. The only
question here is, as to the views of Dr. Jackson himself on our present subject.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 415
** mous consent of so many several Churches as exhibited their
“ confessions to the Nicene Council, being not dependent one of
“ another, not overswayed by authority, nor misled by faction
«.... was a pregnant argument to any impartial under-
** standing man that this faith wherein they all agreed had been
““ delivered unto them by the Apostles and their followers’... .
“ HOWBEIT THIS UNANIMOUS TRADITION ECCLE-
« SIASTIC WAS NOT IN THESE TIMES HELD FOR
* ANY PROPER PART OF THE RULE OF FAITH, BUT
*« ALLEGED ONLY AS AN INDUCEMENT TO INCLINE
“THE HEARTS OF SUCH AS BEFORE ACKNOW-
“ LEDGED THE WRITTEN WORD FOR THE ONLY
“ RULE OF FAITH, TO BELIEVE THAT THE INTER-
* PRETATIONS OR DECISIONS OF THOSE COUNCILS
* DID CONTAIN THE TRUE SENSE AND MEANING
“OF THE RULE ACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL....
“ The chief authority which the visible Church then challenged
“ did consist in the unanimous consent of the Ecclesiastie Tradi-
“tion, and that, as was said before, BUT AN INDUCEMENT to
“* embrace the interpretations of the present Church, and reject
“ the interpretations of upstart heretics.” (pp. 23—25.) “But
* although heresies of long standing and continuance cannot be
“ refuted, nor may not be assaulted, in Vincentius’s judgment,
“ by the former method, that is, by multitude of suffragants,
“or joint consent of several Provinces, is there therefore no
“other means left to convince them, no way left to eschew
“them? Yes, we may eschew them, saith he, as already con-
“ demned by antient and orthodoxal Councils, or we may con-
“vince them, so it be needful or expedient, by the sole autho-
“rity of Scriptures. Now, if the Scriptures be sufficient to
* convince heresies of Jong continuance or Jong standing, and
“ to confute such hereties as want neither wit, will, nor oppor-
“tunity to falsify antient records, and imprint traditions of
“ their own coining with inscriptions of Antiquity, 1 hope the
“ same Scripture was, in Vincentius’s judgment, a Rule of faith
“neither incomplete for its quantity, nor insufficient for its
1 That there is no sufficient authority for this statement, I have already shown
in the observations on the Council of Nice, in chap. 10.
416 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ quality ; A RULE EVERY WAY COMPETENT FOR ENDING CON-
“ PROVERSIES IN RELIGION, WITHOUT THE ASSUMPTION EITHER
‘© or TRADITION OR DECREES OF COUNCIL AS ANY ASSOCIATES
“OR HOMOGENEAL PARTS OF THE SAME RULE.” (pp. 26, 7.)
“ Unto what use, then, did Ecclesiastical Tradition or General
“ Councils serve for quelling heresies ? Ecclesiastical traditions,
“ or unanimous consent of particular Churches throughout several
“< kingdoms or provinces in points of faith’ was in antient times,
“and yet may be, an excellent means by which the Spirit of
“ God leads General Councils into the truth... . Into the
“ same truths which these Councils were then, we now are led,
“ not by relying upon the sole authority of the Councils which
“ the Spirit did lead, but by tracing their footsteps and viewing
“ the way by which the Spirit did lead them. And this was by
“ necessary deductions or consequences, which reason, enlightened
“ by the Spirit, and directed by the sweet disposition of Divine
«« Providence, did teach them to make, and doth enable us to
“ judge that they were truly made by them.” (p. 27.)
Such are the clear statements of sound Protestant doctrine
contained in the very extract given by Mr. Keble. Of what
use Mr. Keble supposed they could be to his cause, it 1s difficult
to see, except that they referred to the canon of Vincent of
Lerins. But the way in which that canon is here applied, be it
observed, is very different from that in which the Tractators
and even Vincent himself apply it. In fact, Dr. Jackson ap-
plies it merely in a way in which few Protestants would disallow
its applicability and use ; just as many other of our divines have
quoted it as, to a certain extent and within certain limits, a
useful rule. But here, as in other cases, a casual recognition
to a certain extent of this Rule of Vincent, is taken advantage
of by Mr. Keble, to lead the reader to the conclusion that Dr.
Jackson supports the use made of that Rule by the Tractators.
And in the next chapter to those from which Mr. Keble has
quoted, Dr. Jackson adds the following testimony on this sub-
ject, “It is ¢heir doctrine....if any controversy should arise
“ concerning the meaning of those Scriptures which she hath
1 He does not speak of it, let us observe, as if it were the consent of the whole
body of believers.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 417
“ς determined to be canonical, or concerning the meaning, limi-
*< tation, or use of those traditions which she hath acknowledged
“to be authentic, no private man may take upon him absolutely
“ to believe this or that to be the meaning of either, but with sub-
“* mission of his judgment to the Church’s sentence. And this, as
“41 have elsewhere showed at large (Bk. 3. Sect. 4.), 15 not only
“ to make the authority of the Church to be above the authority of
“ the Scriptures, but utterly to nullify the authority of the Scrip-
“ tures, save only so far as they may serve as a stale or footstool
“ to support or hold up the authority of tae Cuurcu or Pope.”}
A sentence which precisely and in terms overthrows the system
of the Tractators.
But though these passages are clear enough to show the
opposition of his views to those of the system under considera-
tion, there are others, in his 2nd and 3rd books on the Creed,
if possible still more clear and pertinent to the points under
consideration, to which, therefore, I now proceed.
As it respects the first position, namely, that Church-Tradition
is a divine informant, the following brief declaration may be
sufficient. “ Revelations from above we acknowledge none but the
“written word: they [1. 6. the Romanists] acknowledge tra-
* ditions as well as it.”’?
As it respects the second and third positions, that Church-
Tradition is part of the Rule of faith as the interpreter of the
Scriptures, &c. we may judge of his opinion by the following
passages.
First, as it respects its alleged authority as the interpreter of
the Scriptures.
“Let us see,’ says Dr. Jackson, “whether the sense and
“meaning of these Scriptures, which both they and we hold for
“ canonical, may not be known, understood, and fully assented
“ unto, immediately and in themselves, without relying upon
“ any visible Church or congregation of men, from whose doc-
“trie we must frame our belief without distrust of error or
“ examination of their decrees with any intention to reform
“ them or swerve from them. ‘That the Scripture is not the
“rule whereon private men, especially unlearned, ought to rely
1 On the Creed, bk. 12. ο. 23. 2 Bk. 2. sect. 4. ο. 5.
VOL. III. EE
418 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“in matters of faith, from these general reasons or topics they
* seek to persuade us. First, &c. &c.”!
And proceeding afterwards to point out the principal points
of difference between him and the Romanists, he sums them up
in the two following. “ First, whether Christ, whose authority
“ both acknowledge for infallible, hath left any public judge of
“these Scriptures, which both receive, OR OF THEIR RIGHT
““ SENSE AND MEANING, from whose sentence we may not appeal ;
“ or whether all to whom this ministry of faith is committed, be
“but expositors of Divine Scriptures, so as their expositions
“ may by au faithful Christians be examined, Uence ariseth
“ that other question, whether the Scriptures be the infallible
“ Rule of faith. If Scripture admit any judge, then is it no rule
“ of faith. Tf all doctrines are to be examined by Scripture,
“then is it a perfect rule.’ And speaking of the obedience
required by Romanists to the Church, he says, “ The reasons
“‘ pretended for this absolute obedience to be performed unto
* the Church or visible company of men, are drawn from the
“ insufficiency of Scripture, either for notifying itself to be the
““ word of God, or the true sense and meaning of itself.”
Hence proceeding to state his own views, he says,—‘ We
“ affirm that the infallible Rule whereupon every Christian, in
“‘ matters of written verities, absolutely and finally, without all
* appeal, condition, or reservation, is to rely, must be the divine
“ written oracles themselves; some of which every Christian
“hath written in his heart by the finger of God’s Spirit, and
“believes immediately in and for themselves, not for any
“ authority of men, and these to him must be the rule for
“ examining all other doctrines and trying any matters of faith.”*
“ When we affirm, that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule
“in matters of faith and Christian obedience, we understand
“ such a rule in those matters as Aristotle’s Organon may be
“ said of Logic, supposing it were sound and free from all
“ suspicion of error in every point, and contained in it all the
* general and undoubted principles from which all true form of
“ argumentation must be deduced, and into which all must be
«finally resolved. To illustrate this truth by a known practice.
1 Bk. 2. sect. 1. ο.Ἱ 1. 2 Bk. 2. sect. 1. ο. 3.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 419
“« Our younger students are bound to yield their absolute assent
“unto Aristotle’s authority in matters of Logic, but not unto
“any interpreter that shall pretend it, save only when he shall
“ make evident unto them that this was Aristotle’s meaning. And
‘ while they so only and no otherwise yield their assent, they
* yield it wholly and immediately unto Aristotle, not to the
“interpreter, although by his means they came to know
« Aristotle’s meaning, which once known, without any further
“ confirmation of other testimony or authority, commands their
“ obedience and assent. But ere they can fully assent unto this
“ great Master, or throughly perceive his meaning, they must
*“ CONDITIONALLY assent unto their private Tutors or other
““ Expositors, and take his sense and meaning upon their trust
“and credit. In like manner, say, we, in all matters, doctrines,
* or controversies of faith and Christian obedience, we are bound
“to yield our assent directly, absolutely, and finally, unto the
* authority of Scriptures ONLY ; not unto any Doctor, Expositor,
““ or other, whosoever he be that shall pretend authority out of
* Scripture over our faith, save only when he shall make it clear
* and evident unto us that his opinion is the true meaning of the
“ Scripture.... And before we be brought to see their truth
*‘ with our own eyes, and feel it by our sense, by the effects or
** experiments of it upon our own souls, we are to damit our assent
“« and obedience, as it is set down before, according to the proba-
** bilities or unpartial imducements which we have of the Expo-
* sitor’s skill and sincerity in dispensing Divine mysteries.”
Proceeding to discuss the question, “In what sense the Serip-
“ tures may be said [to be] the rule of men’s faith altogether
“ illiterate,” he observes, “ Here it will be démanded, how men
“ altogether illiterate can examine any doctrine by Scriptures ?
“Tf they cannot read them, how shall they examine any-
“thing by them? not. examining the points of faith by
“them, how can they be said to be the Rule of your faith?
“ In such a sense as Aristotle’s works, supposing them only
“‘ authentic, and all his opposites counterfeits or new-fangles,
“may be said to be the rule of blind men’s logic; for albeit
“ they cannot read his works, yet are they capable of his general
“ and undoubted rules, seeimg they have, as well as other men, a
EE2
420 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ natural faculty of discerning truth from falsehood, and can
“distinguish betwixt rules derived from the pure fountain of
“truth in that kind, and precepts drawn from conjectural,
“erroneous, and corrupt surmises of shallow brains, if both be
“ distinctly proposed to them. And the rules of truth once
“fully apprehended and embraced, serve as a touchstone to
*‘ discern all consequences and conclusions which shall be
“suggested unto them by others, so as they will admit of
“nothing for sound and true logic, but what may be resolved
“into the former, or some other principles, which they can
“ perspicuously and immediately discern to have been drawn
“from the fountain of truth by the same natural faculty or
“ ability by which they did discern the former, for the faculty
“will still be like affected with all principles of like nature,
“ use, and perspicuity. In like sort must the first and general
“ principles of faith be derived from Scriptures, the only pure
“ fountain of supernatural truths, unto all illiterate hearts by the
“ministry of the learned. For hearts, though illiterate, once
“illuminated by God’s Spirit, are as apt to discern spiritual
“ principles from falsehood or carnal conjectures, as the natural
“man is to discern natural truths from errors of the same
“kind. And these general and fundamental principles of faith,
“* engrafted in their hearts, serve as infallible rules for discern-
“ ing the consonancy or dissonancy of such particulars as shall
“be suggested unto them...... If they doubt of any man’s
“doctrine whether it be truly spiritual or consonant to the
“ foundation of faith, they []. 6. the “altogether illiterate”
“ who “ cannot read”’] may appeal to Scriptures, as they shall
“‘ be expounded to them by others. Finally, they are tied to no
“visible company of men, whom they must under pain of
“ damnation follow.” “For conclusion, the Scripture, accord-
“‘img to our doctrine and the general consent of Reformed
“ Churches, is the only infallible Rule of faith iv BOTH RESPECTS
‘© OR CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT RULE. First, in that it contains
“all the principles of faith and points of salvation, so that no
“visible Church on earth may commend any doctrine to others,
‘“as a doctrine of faith, unless it be commended to them for
“such by the Scriptures, by which every one’s doctrine that
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 421
“ acknowledgeth God for his Lord must be examined as by a
* law uncontrollable. SECONDLY, IN THAT THESE PRINCIPLES
** OF FAIVH ARE PLAINLY, PERSPICUOUSLY, AND DISTINCTLY SET
* DOWN TO THE CAPACITIES OF ALL THAT FAITHFULLY FOLLOW
‘‘ THEIR PRACTICAL RULES MOST PLAIN, MOST PERSPICUOUS, AND
“ PASY, TO ALL CAPABLE OF ANY RULE OR REASON. So that this
“ sacred Canon needs no associate, no addition of any authority
* as equally infallible, nor more perspicuous than itself, to supply
“ what it wants; only the ministry of men skilful and indus-
“ trious in the search or exposition of it, is to be supposed.
“ And atu THESE, be they never so excellent and well conversant
“in them, are unto Scriptures but as the ordinary expositors of
* classic and authentic books are unto the chief authors or inventors
“ of the science contained in them, supposing that the first authors
“were men of extraordinary and INFALuiBLE skill, and their
“ expositors, as they usually are, but of ordinary capacity or
“ experience in those faculties.” }
The subject of the 3rd section of the same book is, “ That the
“continual practice of heretics in urging Scriptures for to
“establish heresy, and the diversity of opinions amongst the
“ learned about the sense of them, is no just exception why they
“should not be acknowledged as the sole entire and complete
“ Rule of faith”? And in it he observes,—“ It hath been the
“ practice of heretics, say they, to misinterpret Scriptures,
“and pretend their authority for countenancing errors. This
“wounds not us, except we were naked of all syllogistical
“ armour of proof. For they should prove, if they will conclude
“ought to our prejudice, that none but heretics have used
“ Scriptures’ authority to confirm their opinions. For if
“ orthodox and truly religious writers in the best and flourish-
“ ing ages of the Church, have been as copious and industrious
“in citing authorities of Scriptures for their opinions as heretics,
“ this argument proves nothing against us, why we may not be
“ orthodoxes and true Catholics, as well as heretics.......
““ It hath been the practice of sundry heretics, never of any orthodox,
* to refuse their trial by Scripture, and flie unto traditions......
“ The devil, we all know, did urge the Scripture to our Saviour
1 BK. 2. sect. 1. c. 11.
422 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ with great skill and dexterity..... But with what weapon
did our Saviour vanquish Satan, that had set upon him with
“ Scripture? Did he charge him, sub poena anathematis, to
“ be silent ?—or did he crave the Church’s peace under pain
“ of greater penalties ?—or did he appeal unto the infallible
“ authority or supreme tribunal of the Jewish Church? Did he
“ except against him for using an unlawful heretical weapon ?
“ Can you deny that he foiled him with these very weapons,
“ wherewith we now contend that all heretics, Satan’s followers,
“are to be assaulted and repulsed, ere they can be lawfully
foiled and quite overthrown?” (ch. 2.) “ How far the Fathers
“ did urge the Church’s authority, how the most pregnant speeches
“ that can be found in any of their writings must be limited, will
easily appear, if we consider the two former distinctions ; the one
“between the infallible Rule of faith, and the means or motives
“ inducing us to believe ; the other between that conditional assent,
“ which, in cases doubtful, we must give to the visible Church, and
“ that absolute belief, which is only due unto Scriptures. The
“ Fathers used the Church’s authority against heretics, as we do
“ theirs against novelists; not as a rule whereby finally to
examine or determine divine truths, but as a curb to bridle pre-
“ sumptuous gaimsaying opinions generally received, or supposed
“ for true, by men of sincerity and skill m divine mysteries.”
(ch. 8.)
And, in the fifth chapter, he undertakes to prove “ the
“ sufficiency of Scriptures for final determination of contro-
* versies in religion, proved by our Saviour’s and his Apostles’
‘¢ authority and practice.” And he observes in it, “ The strength
“ of all their arguments in the point now in hand to this day
continues this, We must not make Scriptures the Rule of faith,
“because many heresies have sprung thence, and great dis-
“ sensions grown in the Church ; whiles one follows one sense,
“ἡ and another the contrary. /Vhereas, in truth, the only antidote
“ against contentions, schisms and heresies, is to read them atten-
“ tively, and with such preparation as they prescribe.” (ch. 5.)
His 7th chapter is upon the question, “ How far, upon what
“terms or grounds, we may, with modesty, dissent from the
* antients or others of more excellent gifts than ourselves,” and
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 458
in it he speaks thus ;-— Christianity itself binds att Christians
“ not to believe men’s authority against their own consciences,
“ nor to admit of their doctrines for rules of faith, be they never
“so excellent; unless they can discern them to be the doctrine
“ of that great Prophet, cui Deus non admetitur Spiritum. He
** cannot fail in anything; and whatsoever he saith, or what his
“ Spirit shall witness to my spirit to have proceeded from him,
“1 am bound to believe. But for men to whom God gives his
“ Spirit but in measure, albeit in great measure, because I can-
“ not know the particulars unto which it extends, I neither may
“ absolutely refuse, nor absolutely admit their doctrines for true,
“until I see perfectly how they agree with, or disagree from,
“ his doctrine of whose fulness we have all received. And even
“ the truth of their writings to whom he hath given his gifts in
“‘ great measure, I am to examine by their consonancy unto that
“ small measure of his undoubted gifts in myself, so far as they
“ concern myself, or others committed to my charge. And in
“ the confidence of God’s promises for the increase of faith and
“erace to all such as use them aright, every Christian in
“ sobriety of spirit may, by the principles of faith planted by
“‘ God’s finger in his heart, examine the sentences and decrees
“ἐ of the wisest men on earth ; to approve them, if he can discern
“ them for true; to confute them, if false ; to suspend his judg-
“ment, and limit the terms of his disobedience unto them, if
* doubtful ; and finally, to admit or reject them, according to
“the degrees of their probability or improbability, which he,
“upon sober, diligent, and impartial search, directed and con-
“ tinued in reverence of God’s word and sincere love of truth,
“ shall find in them.” “ Thus much may now suffice, that no
“ man ought to be dismayed in seeking or despair to find the
“ true sense and meaning of Scriptures in all points necessary
“ for him in his calling, because other men, much more expert
in all kind of learning than himself, have foully erred in this
“‘ search ; and finally missed of that they sought.. For out of
“ the rules of Scripture already set down, when such tempta-
* tions shall arise in our breasts, we may quell them thus. They
“‘ who have gone astray were much better learned than 1 im all
“kind of knowledge. It may be they were hence more confi-
424 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“dent of their gifts.... but I will seek to glory only in the
“ Lord....I will not be high-minded, but fear; for the same
“ Scripture tells me, Deus dat gratiam humilibus, yea, grace to
““ understand the true sense and meaning of his gracious pro-
“ mises made in Christ.... Yea, but they who first instructed
“me in thy word, do dissent from me in the interpretation of
“it. It may be they have not followed those rules which thou
“ taughtest them ; Lord, give me grace to meditate aright upon
* thy testimonies, so shall I have more understanding than my
“teachers. But what if the most reverend and antient Fathers
“* of former times were of a contrary mind? O Lord, they were
“ faithful servants in thy house, and yet faithful but as servants,
“ not as thy Son; and it may be thou didst suffer those, thy worthy
** servants, to go awry, to try whether I, thy most unworthy ser-
“ vant, would forsake the footsteps of thine anointed Son, to follow
“ them; but, Lord, teach me thy statutes, so shall I in this point,
“ wherein I differ from them, have more understanding than the
* antient.”
In the last section of this book, which is concerning the
means we have for composing controversies, occur the following
remarks, further illustrating his views on the subject we are
considering. ‘ The last objection is, Our Church hath no
** means of taking up controversies, seeing we permit the use of
‘* Scriptures unto all and every man to follow that sense of them
“ which he liketh best. We do, indeed, permit every man to
“ satisfy his own conscience in matters of salvation ; and God
* forbid,—for, by his Apostles, he hath forbidden,—we should
** usurp any supreme lordship or absolute dominion over their
“ faith. Yet a Christian obedience unto pastors we require in
“ the flock, impossible in our judgment to be performed aright,
‘* unless undertaken more for conscience, than for fear of punish-
“ment. And as obedience, if not framed by conscience, can
“ never be sincere, so conscience, unless regulated by the sacred
““ Canon, must needs be erroneous, and always relish more of
“ superstition than religion.” (Sect. 4. Introd.) “ We bind no
“man, upon pain of damnation, to believe any point of doctrine
“which is not plainly and expressly set down in Scriptures.”
{ch. 9.) Besides the external helps of an ordinary ministry or
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 425
“ magistracy, alike common to all nations, the holy Spirit is
“ everywhere assistant to all such as seek him in the written
“ word by him revealed; whose live characters are as the prints
“or footsteps of his wonted motions in God’s prophets’ or
“* apostles’ hearts, by which the faithful may discern his ap-
“ proach or presence in their own.” “ Let us now, in sobriety of
“ spirit, rather dispute of God’s will, than his power ; as whether
“ there be any sure argument to persuade us that it was his
“ intent or purpose, either ¢o instruct men in the true sense of
“« Scriptures, or to take up all controversies in matters of faith,
“ by this supposed infallibility of some visible Church .... That
“ the sense of Scriptures cannot be had without the assistance
“ or working of God’s Spirit, both jointly acknowledge. ‘They
“ must be understood and interpreted, saith Bellarmine, by the
* same Spirit which wrote them,’ as he very well gathers out of
“δέ, Peter. (2 Pet.1. 20, 21.) Whence, likewise, he well col-
“ lects, that the whole difficulty in this question about taking
““ up controversies, and finding out the true sense of Scriptures,
* consists in this, Where this Spirit is, and where the distressed
“ soul and doubtful conscience ought to seek it...... Every man,
* say we, ought to seek the Spirit of God in his own soul and con-
** science, being directed and ruled by the sacred word which was
* revealed and uttered by the same Spirit. This word directs them
“in this search; and the Spirit once found out, or rather finding
“ them thus seeking him, establisheth their assent unto the word
“ already revealed and written, by imprinting the same invisible
“ word, or the true sense and meaning of it, in their hearts.” [A
declaration which is as much opposed to the views of the Trac-
tators, as to those of the Romanists, on this point.] (ch. 5.)
And these passages clearly show, what his opinion was as to
the notion of there being important truths not contained in
Scripture, as, for instance, where he says, “ Revelations from
above we acknowledge none, but the written word ;”! and
“ No visible Church on earth may commend any doctrine to
“* others, as a doctrine of faith, unless it be commended to them
* for such by the Scriptures.” To which the following may
1 Bk. ii. Sect. 4. ο. 5. 2 Bk, ii. Sect. 1. c. 11.
426 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
be added, that “the written word” is “sole umpire in all con-
troversies of religion’! So that whatever truth or doctrine
may be proposed to us not contained in the Scriptures, it is,
in his view, only from a human and uninspired source, and
therefore not a doctrine of faith.
As it respects the Rule of practice, his subject not leading
him to speak of it, the reader must judge what his views are
likely to have been respecting it, from the above passages.
As it respects the fourth position, on the necessity of Church-
tradition as part of the Rule of faith, on account of the obseu-
rity of Scripture, thus he speaks.
This point forms the subject-matter of the second section of
his second book, which he thus entitles, “That the pretended
“ obscurity of Scriptures is no just exception why they should
“ not be acknowledged the absolute Rule of faith, which is the
““ mother-objection of the Romanist.”’ In discussing this point,
he shows, in the first chapter, “ How far it may be granted the
Scriptures are obscure.” “It is first,” he says, “to be supposed,
“ that these Scriptures........ were given by God for the
“ instruction of all succeeding ages, for all sorts of men in every
“age, for all degrees or divers measures of his other gifts in all
“ several sorts or conditions of men ... Some part of God’s
“ will contained in Scripture, is revealed in one age, some in
“another ; always that which is most necessary for the present
“ time, is most easy to be understood by the faithful then living,
“so they seek the meaning of it as they should. .... The like
“ observation we may take from the diversity of place or nations
“. ... Again, from the divers conditions of men living in
“ the same age, this resolution is most evident and most’ cer-
“tain. The same portion of Scripture may be difficult unto
“some sort of men, and easy unto others; without any preju-
“ dice to their sufficiency for being the perfect and infallible Rule
“ of faith to all...... That the Scriptures, therefore, may be said a
“ sufficient Rule of faith and Christian carriage TO ALL SORTS OR:
“‘ CONDITIONS OF MEN, it is sufficient that every Christian man,
“of what sort or condition soever, may have the general and
1 Bk. ii. Sect. 8. ο. 5.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 427
“ necessary points of Catholic faith, and such particulars as belong
“unto a Christian and religious carriage in his own vocation,
“ perspicuously and plainly set down in them. And no doubt
“‘ but it was God’s will to have them in matters concerning one
“ calling, not so facile unto such as were of another profession,
“ that every man might hence learn sobriety, and be occasioned
“ to seek, if not only, yet principally, after the true sense and
“ meaning of those Scripturés which either necessarily concern
“ all, or must direct him in that Christian course of life where-
“ unto his God hath called him. But shall this difficulty of some
“ parts, which ariseth from the diversity of vocations, be thought
“any hindrance why the whole Canon of Scriptures should not be
“a perfect rule to all in their several vocations ?. . . . . Thirdly,
“ from the diversity of capacities, or different measure of God’s
“ gifts in men of the same profession, we may safely conclude,
“ that the difficulty of the same portion of Scriptures unto some,
“and facility and perspicuity unto others of like profession,
“ cannot justly impeach them of greater obscurity than befits
“ the infallible Rule, as well of theirs as of all other men’s faith,
“ in their several vocations.” (ch. 1.)
Proceeding in the next chapter to discuss “ The true state of
“ the question about the Scriptures’ obscurity or perspicuity,
“unto what men and for what causes they are obscure,” he
observes, “ The question, then, must be, whether the Scriptures
“ be an absolute rule of Christian faith and manners to every
“ man in his vocation and order, according to the measure of
“ God’s gifts bestowed upon him. WE arrrrM, IT Is SUCH TO
“aut. None are so cunning, none so excellent or expert in
“ divine mysteries, but must take it for a rule, beyond whose
“ bounds they may not pass, from which they daily may learn
“ more ; NONE SO SILLY BUT MAY THENCE LEARN ENOUGH FOR
‘* THEIR SALVATION, SO THEY WILL BE RULED By IT.” And the
obscurity to some arises only from their being “for their sins ”
punished with spiritual darkness,” and “ this blindness befals
“only such as have deserved it by the fore-mentioned sins,
“ which once removed by repentance the rule of life shall en-
* lighten them.” ‘Unto. such as they [i. 6. the Jews] were,
428 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“‘ we acknowledge the Scriptures by the just judgment of God
“ [το be most difficult still, but deny such difficulties to be any
“ bar why they should not be the complete Rule of faith. Τῇ
“ the Jesuits will avouch the contrary, let them tell us, whether
“any other rule could in this case supply their defect.” (ch. 2.)
And in the next chapter, showing “How men must be
qualified ere they can understand Scriptures aright,” he
proves that Scripture itself declares, “that unto such as do the
“‘ will of God, and practise according to his precepts, the same
““ word shall be plain and easy, so far as is necessary for salva-
“tion.” “It is the nature and property,” he says, “of God’s
““ word to be plain and facile unto such as are of disposition
“ semblable to it, as to the sincere of heart, single in life and
** plain in dealing, but obscure and difficult unto the worldly
* wise.”” (ch. 3.)
In the next chapter he shows, that ‘the Romanists’ objec-
“tions against the Scriptures for being obscure, do more di-
“rectly impeach their first Author and his messengers their penmen
“ than us or the cause in hand,” and he remarks,—* St. John
** saith he wrote his Gospel, ‘that we might believe.” By what
* authority did he undertake, by whose assistance did he per-
* form this work? Undertaken it was by God’s appointment,
** effected by the assistance of his Eternal Spirit, to the end we
“ might believe the truth. Whattruth? That which he wrote
“ concerning the mysteries of man’s salvation. But how far
““ did he intend this our belief of such mysteries should be set
“ forward by his pen? Unto the first rudiments only, or unto
“the midway of our course to heaven? Questionless unto
*‘ the utmost period of all our hopes, for he wrote these things
* that we might believe, yea so believe in Christ, as by believ-
“ing we might have life through his name. (John xx. 31.)
“ Was he assisted by the Eternal Spirit, who then perfectly
“ς knew the several tempers and capacities of every age? And
“ did he by his direction aim at the perfect belief of sueceeding
“‘ ages as the end and scope of all his writings? And yet did
“ he write so obscurely that he could not be understood of them
‘for whose good he wrote? Out of controversy his desire was
“to be understood of all, for he envied no man knowledge, nor
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 429
“taught he the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with
“ respect of persons. He wished that not the great Agrippas,
* or some few choice ones only, but atx that should hear or
‘‘ read his writings to the world’s end might be not almost but
“ altogether such as he was, faithful believers. From his fer-
“ vent desire of so happy an end as the salvation of all, he so
“ earnestly sought the only correspondent means, to wit, pos-
“ terity’s full instruction in the mysteries thereto belonging
OAD: Do not all the Evangelists aim at the same end?
« And,after adding much more to the same purpose, he concludes,
“ Oh! that they could remember this who have forgotten their
“ God, and cannot see, that whosoever accuseth the Scriptures of
“ difficulty or obscurity doth indict the Omnipotent of impotency
“in not being able to perform what by his Apostles he in-
“ tended.” (ch. 4.)
The subject of his next chapter therefore is, “That all the
»retences of Scriptures’ obscurity are but mists and vapours
“ arising from the corruption of the flesh, and may by the pure
“light of Scriptures, rightly applied, easily be dispelled.”
“ Unto this,” he says, “and all demands of like nature, ‘ If the
« Scriptures be not obscure, how chanceth it that so many find
“such difficulties in them, even in those places which seem to
“ contain in them matters of faith,’ the answer is already given.
“ It was the Almighty’s good pleasure to decree, that the Scrip-
“tures should be plain and easy to such as faithfully practise
“ their most plain and easy precepts, but hard and difficult to
“be understood aright of such as wilfully transgress them, or,
* knowing them to be God’s word, do not glorify them as his
“ word.... This answer notwithstanding, though most true, will
“ not satisfy all. For, seeing this blindness in most men is not
“ voluntary at the least, not wilful or affected, the captious will
“« yet demand, How shall they help it? The Scriptures plainly
“teach how they may be holpen. What can be more plain
“ than that rule, ‘If any man want wisdom, let him ask of
“ God? (James i. 5.) Yeamany do so, and yet go without it.
“‘ So they must, as the Scripture telleth us, if they ask amiss.
“ Doth the Scripture, then, serve as a straight rule to direct
“ them how they should ask aright? Yes; for what rule can
430 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
* be more plain than that of St. John, ‘ Whatsoever we ask, we
* receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do
“ those things which are pleasing in his sight.’ (1 John im. 22.)
“ The promise indeed is plain, but the condition hard, for the
* first thing we would ask of God is grace to keep his command-
“ments. But what hope have sinners to receive this, seeing he
* heareth only such as keep his commandments? Will this or
“ any other rule of Scripture help us out of this labyrinth? It
** will not fail us nor forsake us. For if we have but a desire to
“amend our lives, Christ’s words are as plain as forcible, ‘ He
** quencheth not smoking flax, a bruised reed he will not break.’
“ (Matt. xu. 20.) And this is his commandment, that we try
“ the truth of this and other like sayings of comfort, by re-
“ lying upon his mercy ; or if we do but seek after repentance, we
*“ do that which is pleasing in his sight. For he is not pleased
“in the death of a sinner, but rejoiceth at his repentance.”
* Surely more blind than beetles must they be, that can suffer
ἐς themselves to be persuaded, that ever God or Christ would have
“a rule for man’s direction in the mysteries of salvation so plain
** and easy as he should not need to be beholden to his Maker
“and Redeemer for the true and perfect understanding of it.
* This is a wisdom and gift which cometh only from above,
“and must be daily and earnestly sought for at the hands of
“ God.” (ch. 5.)
In the next chapter he proceeds to prove, “ That the Mosaical
“ writings were a most perfect rule, plain and easy to the antient
“ Israelites,” in which he observes, “ Nothing can be made
* more evident than this truth is in itself, That the Israelites
“ swerving from this rule was the cause of their departure from
“ their God, and the occasion or cause of their swerving from it
*¢ was this devilish persuasion which Satan suggested to them then
* as the Jesuits do unto the Christian people now, as that this
** law was too obscure, too hard, too difficult, to be understood,
“ nor a complete rule for thew actions without traditions, or rely-
“ing upon their priests or men in chief authority. This hypo-
“ erisy Moses did well foresee would be the beginning of all their
“ miseries, the very watchword to apostasy.’ (ch. 6.)
And in the next chapter, ‘ concluding the controversy,” he
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 431
says,— We may conclude this point with our Apostle, < If the
** gospel be obscure,’ or rather hid, for it is a light, obscure it
““ cannot be, God forgive me if I used thut speech, save only in our
“ adversaries’ persons, ‘ it is hid only to such as have the eyes of
*‘ their mind blinded by Satan the god of this world.’ (2 Cor.
“iv. 3, 4.)”? (ch. 7.)
I will only add two more passages on this point, occurring in
the next section. “ Our Saviour saw well how earnestly the
“ Jews were set to pervert Scriptures for their purpose, how
“ glad to find any pretence out of them, either to justify their
* dislike of his doctrine, or wreak their malice upon his person.
“ .... Yet doth not our Saviour accuse the Scriptures, though
“ capable of so grievous and dangerous misconstruction, of
‘‘ obscurity or difficulty, or of being any way the occasion of
“ Jewish heresy, or his persecution thence caused ; nor doth
“he dissuade those very men which had thence sucked this
*‘ poisonous doctrine, much less others, from reading, but
“ exhorts them in truth and deed, not in word and fancy only,
“to rely on Scriptures as the rule of salvation. ‘Search the
“ Scriptures, for in them ye think,’ and that rightly, ‘to have
** eternal life.” Not intimating the least necessity of any external
authority infallibly to direct them, he plainly teacheth it was
“the infernal distorture of their proud affections which had
“ disproportioned their minds to this straight rule, and dis-
“ enabled them from attaining true belief, which never can be
“ rightly raised but by this square and line. It was not, then,
“the reading of Scriptures which caused them mistake their
“ meaning and persecute him, but the not reading of them as
“ they should. Err they did, not knowing the Scriptures, and
“know them they did not, because they did not read them
“ throughly, sincerely, searching out their inward meaning.
“ And thus, to read them afresh, as our Saviour prescribed
“ them, laying aside ambitious desires, was the only remedy for
“ to cure that distemper which they had incurred by reading
“them amiss.” (Sect. 3. c. 5.) “They [1. 6. the Romanists]
“ except against Scripture, and say it cannot be the rule of
* faith, nor ought to be so taken of all Christians, because
“it is so obscure and apt to breed contentions among
432 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“such as rely upon it. We have sufficiently proved, that
“ all obscurities, all contentions about the sense of Scriptures
“in points of moment arise hence, Because [sic] we do not
* admit of it for our only rule, all affection to men’s persons,
“ state, or dignity, all private quarrels laid apart. If the Jesuit
“could prove it should either continue obscure in points of
“ faith, or minister matter of contention to such as conform
“ their lives to the elementary rules or easy precepts therein
“ contained, their arguments were to some purpose. But while
“ this they neither can nor go about to prove, they shall only
* prove themselves ridiculous atheists, albeit we grant them all
“ they desire about the variety of opinions even in places of
“* oveatest moment among the learned.” (Sect. 3. ch. 6.)
As it respects the fifth point, or the authority upon which we
receive the Scriptures as the word of God, his sentiments may
be judged of from the following extracts.
This point forms the chief subject of his first book on the
Creed, and his views may be inferred from the very title of his
first two books, which is, “ The Eternal Truth of Scriptures and
“ Christian belief thereon wholly depending, manifested by its
“own light.” “The grounds or motions,” he says, “ of our
*“ assent unto objects supernatural may be comprised in these
“‘ four propositions following. .... The first, The stile or title
“ of these sacred books pretending divine authority, bind all
“men to make trial of their truth, commended to us by our
“ ancestors, confirmed to them by the blood of martyrs their
“ predecessors ; to use the means which they prescribe for this
“ trial, that is, abstinence from things forbidden, and alacrity
“in doing things commanded by them. The second, Ordinary
“ apprehension or natural belief of matters contained in Scrip-
“‘ tures, or the Christian Creed, are of more force to cause men
“ undertake any good, or abstain from any evil, than the most
“ firm belief of ordinary matters or any points of mere natural
“consequence. The third, Objects and grounds of Christian
“ belief have in them greater stability of truth, and are in them-
‘selves more apt to found most strong and firm belief than any
“ other things whatsoever merely credible. The fourth, The
“means of apprehending the truth of Scriptures, and eaperi-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 433
“‘ ments confirming their divine authority, are both for variety of
“ kinds and number of individuals in every kind, far more, and
“ more certain, than the means of apprehending the grounds
“ of any other belief or the experiments of any other teacher’s
“ authority. Some particulars of every kind, with the general
“heads or common places whence like observations may be
“ drawn, we are now to present, so far as they concern the con-
“ firmation of the truth of Scriptures in general.” ἢ
Proceeding then to point out “the experiments confirming
the truth of Scriptures,” he says, “all may be reduced into
“ these two general heads or kinds; they may be found e7ther
“in the style or character of these writings themselves, the
“ affections or dispositions of their writers, or in events or ex-
“ periments, whatsoever the course of time affords, answerable
“ to the rules set down in Scriptures.” Of the former kind he
notices “the historical characters of sacred antiquities,” “the
harmony of sacred writers,” “the affections or dispositions of
sacred writers ;” and then proceeds to point out at considerable
length “the experiments and observations answerable to the
rules of Scriptures,” proving them to be what they profess to
be; which he prefaces with the observation that “The means of
“ establishing our assent unto any part of Scripture must be from
“ experiments and observations, agreeable to the rules in Scrip-
“ture. For when we see the reason and manner of sundry
“ events, either related by others or experienced in ourselves,
“which otherwise we could never have reached unto by any
“ natural skill; or generally, when we sce any effects or con-
* currence of things which cannot be ascribed to any but a
“ supernatural cause, and yet they fully agreeing to the oracles
“ of Scriptures or Articles of belief, this is a sure pledge unto
“us that he who is the Author of truth, and gives being unto
“ all things, was the Author of Scriptures.”’?
And having in the 2nd and 3rd sections treated of the
experiments and observations external, drawn partly from
heathen fables, partly from the revolution of states, or God’s
public judgments, especially of the Jews, all testifying the
i Bk. 1» 1 sect: 2. c. 5. 2 Bk. 1. P. 2. sect. 2. ὁ, 1.
VOL. Il. bee ο
434 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
truth of the divine oracles, he treats in the 4th, “ Of experi-
“ ments in ourselves, and the right framing of belief as well unto
“ the several parts as unto the whole canon of Scripture ;” and
these experiments he calls “ the surest pledges of divine truths,
“ without which all observations of former experiments are but
“ like assurances well drawn but never sealed.”
And the only notices of Church-Tradition in this book are
indirect allusions to it as offering a partial and introductory
motive to the belief of Scripture as the word of God, which
of course no one denies it to be, nor that it is one of a powerful
kind.
I pass on to the learned
ARcHBISHOP USHER.
The extract given by Mr. Keble is taken from his Sermon,
“ΟΥ̓ the universality of the Church of Christ.” Now the only
passage in it that gives even a semblance of support to Mr.
Keble’s views is where the Archbishop says, “That which in
“ the time of the antient Fathers was accounted to be ‘truly
“and properly catholic, namely, ‘that which was believed
“ everywhere, always, and by all,’ that in the succeeding ages
“ hath evermore been preserved, and is at this day entirely pro-
“ fessed in our Church.” The remark (though placed by Mr.
Keble immediately after a sentence preceding it by some pages,
without any indication of matter intervening) is made in reply
to the popular question of the Romanists, ‘ Where was your
Church before Luther?” To which Usher replies,—< Our
“ Church was even there where now it is. In all places of the
“ world where the antient foundations were retained and these
“ common principles of faith upon the profession whereof men
“ have ever been wont to be admitted by baptism into the Church
“ of Christ, there we doubt not but our Lord had his subjects,
“ and we our fellow-servants. For we bring in zo new faith,
“nor no new church. That which in the time of the antient
** Fathers,” &c. The passage therefore seems clearly to apply
only to the “ common principles of faith, upon the profession
“‘ whereof men have ever been wont to be admitted by baptism
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 4.35
“into the Church of Christ ;” that is, those articles of the
Creed that have been admitted, as far as we can find, by all
Churches. And further, we must inquire whether the arch-
bishop held this “consent” to be so ascertainable in the strict
sense of the term, as to be a divine or practically infallible
informant, either as perpetuating the oral teaching of the
Apostles, or from the promises of Christ to the Church, and
thus to form part of the Rule of faith. For, as we have already
observed, the Rule of Vincent is, in a general sense, and to a
certain extent, applicable and useful ; and hence is often referred
to by those whose views were widely different from those of our
opponents.
For the answer to this question, then, I refer the reader to
the following extracts from his works.
I will refer the reader first to the following extract from his
“ Principles of Christian Religion,” (drawn up in the form of a
Catechism,) which compendiously embraces all the first four
points :-—“ Q. What sure ground have we to build our religion
“upon? A. The word of God contained in the Scriptures.
« Q. What are those Scriptures? A. Holy writings indited by
“God himself for the perfect instruction of his Church. .....
“ Q. How serve they for the perfect instruction of the Church ?
“« A. In that they are able to instruct us sufficiently in all points
“ of faith that we are bound to believe and all good duties that
“we are bound to practise. Q. What gather you of this?
“ A. That it is our duty to acquaint ourselves with these holy
“ writings, and not to receive any doctrine that hath not warrant
<< from thence.” }
As it respects the first point of the system under review, we
read in him thus.
“ That traditions of men should be obtruded unto us for
* articles of religion, and admitted for parts of God’s worship,
** or that any traditions should be accepted for parcels of God’s
1 App. UsHeEr’s Principles of Christian Religion; mit. I quote from the
edition attached to the larger Catechism, entitled “ A Body of Divinity, or the
Sum and Substance of Christian Religion.” 8th ed. Lond. 1702. 4to. On the
claims of the larger Catechism to be considered his work, I shall speak in a sub-
sequent note; but this smaller Catechism was published (as stated in the Title)
as revised and corrected by himself.
FF 2
᾿
436 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ word beside the holy Scriptures, and such doctrines as are either
“ expressly therein contained, or by sound inference may be deduced
“« from thence, I think we have reason to gainsay, as long as for
“the first we have this direct sentence from God himself,
“« Matt. xv. ‘In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
“ the commandments of men ;’ and for the second the express
“warrant of the Apostle, 2 Tim. iv. testifymg of the Holy
“ Scriptures, not only that they are able to make us wise unto
“ salvation, which they should not be able to do if they did not
“ contain all things necessary to salvation, but also that by them
“ the man of God, that is the minister of God’s word (1 Tim. vi.
“ 11), unto whom it appertaineth ¢o declare all the counsel of God
“ (Acts xx. 27), may be perfectly instructed to every good work ;
‘ which could not be, if the Scriptures did not contain all the
“counsel of God, which was fit for him to learn, or, i there
“ were any other word of God which he were bound to teach
‘that should not be contained within the limits of the Book
“ of God.” }
So in his “ Body of Divinity, or the Sum and Substance
of Christian Religion,” in reply to the question, “ Where, then,
is the word of God now certainly to be learned?” he says,
“ Only out of the Book of God, contained in the Holy Scriptures,
“which are the only certain testimonies unto the Church of the
“word of God. John v. 39, 2 Tim. in. 15.”?
oo
n
1 Answer to Jesuit’s Chall. ch. 2. 4th ed. 1686. p. 24.
2 Body of Divinity, &c. 8th ed. 1702. 4to. Article 1. p. 5. This work was first
published in 1645 by John Downame (son of George Downame Bp. of Chester,
and brother of George Downame Bp. of Derry, and himself the author of several”
excellent works) as a work of Abp. Usher’s. The book was published without
the Abp.’s consent from a transcript of a MS. lent by the Abp. to some friends.
(See Parr’s Life of Usher. Lond. 1686. p.42). We are told, however, by his
chaplain Dr. Nicholas Bernard, that “indeed, he was displeased at the publishing
of it, without his knowledge, but hearing of some good fruit which hath been
reaped by it, he hath permitted it.” (Life and Death of Abp. Usher. By Dr. N.
Bernard. Lond. 1656. 8vo. pp. 41, 42.) Several other editions consequently were
published in his life-time, and though certainly it cannot be considered as being in
the state in which he himself would have put it forth, yet being published with
his permission must of course be considered as, in all important points of doctrine,
consonant with his views. And the Editor of a subsequent edition of the work
(Lond. 1677. fol.) says, that he “ in his elder days, blessed God for its publica-
tion, though at first it started into the world without his consent, because he per-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 437
For the second and third positions the reader may observe the
following.
©The ground’ of our religion and the Rule of faith, and
“all saving truth, is the word of God contained in the holy
“ Scripture.” +
Again; in his Answer to the Jesuit, having intimated his
desire that the points in difference should be determined by an
appeal to the Scriptures, he adds, “ And this we say, not as if
“‘ we feared that these men were able to produce better proofs
“ out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope,
“ than we can do for the Catholic cause, (when we come to join
“in the particulars, they shall find it otherwise,) but partly to
“‘ bring the matter unto a shorter trial, partly to give the word
“ of God his due, and to declare what that rock is upon which
“ LONE we build our faith, even ‘ the foundation of the Apostles
“and Prophets’ (Eph. ii. 20); from which no sleight that
“ they can devise shall ever draw us. The same course did St.
« Augustine take with the Pelagians; against whom he wanted
“not the authority of the Fathers of the Church, ‘which if I
* would collect,’ saith he, ‘ and use their testimonies, it would
“ be too long a work, and I might peradventure seem to have less
“ confidence than I ought in the canonical authorities from which
“* we ought not to be withdrawn. (Aug. De Nupt. et Concup.
“ jib. ii. 6. 29.) Yet was the Pelagian heresy then but newly
“ budded ; which is the time wherein the pressing of the Fathers’
“ testimonies is thought to be best in season. With how much
“better warrant may we follow this precedent, having to deal
“* with such as have had time and leisure enough to falsify the
* Fathers’ writings, and to ‘teach them the learning and the
“ tongue of the Chaldeans !?” ”
“ The books of Holy Scripture are so sufficient for the know-
ceived it had done much good ; which those have affirmed to hear him say, which
had no fondness for the book.”
If however any objection is taken to the testimony of this work, as not having
been published by Usher himself, the proofs I have given of his views from other
sources are quite sufficient to show what they were.
1 Article 1 of the Irish Articles of 1615, known to have been drawn up by
Usher. See them in Concil. Britann. ed. Wilkins.
4°Ch>1. pp. 7,8:
438 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ledge of Christian religion, that they do most plentifully
“contain all doctrine necessary to salvation. They being
“ perfectly profitable to instruct to salvation in themselves, and
“all other imperfectly profitable thereunto, further than they
“ draw from them. Whence it followeth, that we need no un-
“ written verities, ne traditions or inventions of men, no canons of
““ Councils, no sentences of Fathers, much less Decrees of Popes,
“ for to supply any supposed defect of the written word, or
“for to give us a@ more perfect direction in the worship of God
“ and the way of life than is already expressed in the Canonical
“ Scriptures. Matt. xxii. 8. John v. 39. Matt. xv. 9. Finally,
“‘ these Holy Scriptures are the Rule, the Line, the Square, and
“ Light, whereby to examine and try all judgments and sayings
“of men and angels. John xii. 48. Gal. i. 9. . All traditions,
““ revelations, decrees of Councils, opinions of doctors, &c., are to
“be embraced so far forth as they may be proved out of the
“ Divine Scriptures, and not otherwise. So that from them only
‘all doctrine concerning our salvation must be drawn and
“ derived, .... Q. Where do you find that the Scriptures are
“ able to instruct us perfectly unto salvation? A. The Apostle
“ Paul in 2 Tim. ui. 15. doth expressly affirm it; and the
“ yeasons which may be gathered out of the two verses follow-
“ ing do plainly prove it. Q. What are these reasons? A. 1. God
““ being author of these books, they must needs be perfect as he
“himself is. Who being for his wisdom able, and for his
“ love to his Church willing, to set down such a rule as may
“‘ guide them to eternal life, hath not failed herem. 2. They
“are profitable to teach all true doctrine, and to confute the
“ false ; to correct all disorder, private and public, and to inform
“men in the way of righteousness. 3. The man of God, that
“is, the Preacher and Minister of the Word, is thereby made
“ complete and perfect, sufficiently furnished unto every good
“work or duty of the ministry. Q. How doth this last reason
“hold? A. Most strongly. For the people being to learn
“ οὗ the minister, what to believe and what to do, and more
“‘ being required of him that must be the eye and mouth of all
“the rest, if he may be perfectly instructed by the Scriptures,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 439
* they are much more able to give every common man sufficient
“ instruction.” 1
“0. What assurance may be had of the right understanding
“ the Holy Scriptures ?—A. For the words, it is to be had out
“ of the original text, or translations of the same ; for the sense
“or meaning, ONLY OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES,
“ (Nehem. vin. 8.) which by places plain and evident do express
“ whatsoever is obscure and hard touching matters necessary to
“ eternal salvation.” —“ Q. Why must the true sense or mean-
* ing of the Scriptures be learned out of the Scriptures them-
“selves? A. Because the Spirit of God alone is the certain
“* Interpreter of his word written by his Spirit. For no man
“ knoweth the things pertaining to God but the Spirit of
“ God. (1 Cor. ii. 11.) And no prophecy of Scripture is of
“ man’s own interpretation ; for prophecy was not brought by
“ the will of men, but the holy men of God spake as they were
“led by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet.i.20, 21.) The interpre-
“ὁ tation, therefore, must be by the same Spirit by which the
“ Scripture was written; of which Spirit we have no certainty
“upon any man’s credit, but only so far forth as his saying
“may be confirmed by the Holy Scripture. Q. What gather
“ you from hence? A. That no interpretation of Holy Fathers,
“ Popes, Councils, custom or practice of the Church, either
“ contrary to the manifest words of the Scripture, or containing
“ matters which cannot NECESSARILY be proved out of the Scriptures,
ἐς are to be received as an undoubted truth. Q. How, then, is
‘* Scripture to be interpreted by Scripture? 4. According to
“ the analogy of faith, (Rom. xii. 6.) and the scope and circum-
“ stances of the present place, and conference of other plain and
* evident places, by which all such as are obscure and hard to
“ be understood ought to be interpreted. For there is no matter
“ necessary to eternal life which is not PLAINLY AND SUFFICIENTLY
“SET FORTH IN MANY PLACES OF Scripture, by which other
“ places that are abused by the devil or his ministers may be inter-
“preted. As our Saviour Christ giveth us example, (Matt. iv.
“ 6, 7,) when the devil abused the text of Scripture, (Ps. xci. 11.)
“ declaring that this place must be so understood as it may
1 Body of Div. Art. 1. pp. 15, 16.
440 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“agree with that most evident and express commandment
“ written in Deut. vi. 16. ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
[7 God.’ 231
In these passages, let us observe, Scripture is set forth not
only as full and explicit in the doctrines it delivers, but as
the only source of all the truths of religion, for he says, that
“γα need no unwritten verities, no traditions, &c. for to supply
“any supposed defect of the written word, or for to give us a more
“ perfect direction in the worship of God and the way of life,
“than is already expressed in the canonical Scriptures... .
from them only all doctrine coNCERNING our salvation must
be drawn and derived. And that in this passage he meant
to include not merely necessary and fundamental points, but all
the truths of religion, is evident from the following passage,
which follows soon after that just quoted ;—‘ Our adversaries
* quarrel against this most rich and plentiful treasure of the
“ Holy Scriptures, alleging that we receive many things by
“ Tradition which are not in Scripture, and yet we believe them.
* As Mary’s perpetual virginity and the baptism of infants. We
“make not Mary’s perpetual virginity any matter of religion.
“....As for baptism of infants, it is sufficiently warranted by
“‘ reasons of Scripture, though not by example.” 5
I proceed to the fourth position, on which, however, the pas-
sages already quoted might be a sufficient testimony ; especially
where he says,—‘‘ There is no matter necessary to eternal life
‘“which is not plainly and sufficiently set forth in many places of
““ Scripture.”
I will, however, add the following, as further proofs of his
mind on this important point.
“ They [i.e. the Scriptures] are as a rule of steel that is firm
“ and changeth not. (Matt. ν. 18. Ps. xix. 9.) For seeing they
“ are sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, as is before proved,
“it followeth of necessity, that there is a most certain rule of
* truth for instruction both of faith and works, to be learned out of
* them by ordinary means of reading, prayer, study, the gifts of
* tongues, and other sciences, to which God promiseth the assistance
“ of his grace. (John ν. 39. James 1.5.) And this sword of the
1 Tb. pp. 20. 21. el Br Sp bef
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 441]
“ Spirit, which is the word of God written, as the example of
“ Christ our General Captain showeth, (Matt. iv.) is delivered
“ unto us by the Holy Ghost, both to defend our faith and to
“ overcome all our spiritual enemies, which are the devil and
“ his instruments, false prophets, heretics, schismatics, and such
“Tike. (Eph. vi. 12.)”’—“ Q. Are the Scriptures, then, plain
“ and easy to be understood? A. There are some hard things
“in the Scriptures, that have proper relation to the time in
“which the Scripture was written and uttered, or which are
** prophecies of things to be fulfilled hereafter, which if we never
“understand, we shall be never the worse for the attaining of
“everlasting salvation. There are other things in Scripture
“ belonging unto the saving knowledge of God ; all which are
“ dark and difficult unto those whose eyes the god of this world
“ hath blinded. (2 Cor. iv. 4, 2 Pet. i. 5. John viii. 43.) But
“unto such as are by grace enlightened and made willing to
“ understand, (Ps. exix. 18.), howsoever some things remain
* obscure (2 Pet. ii. 16.) to exercise their diligence, yet the
““ fundamental doctrines of faith and precepts of life are all plain
** and perspicuous. FoR ALL DOCTRINE NECESSARY TO BE KNOWN
** UNTO ETERNAL SALVATION IS SET FORTH IN THE SCRIPTURES
‘‘ MOST CLEARLY AND PLAINLY, EVEN TO THE CAPACITY AND
‘‘ UNDERSTANDING OF THE SIMPLE AND UNLEARNED.” ‘“‘ But
“here the Papists have many things to object against you, to
‘* prove that the Scriptures are dark and hard to be understood :
* and, Object. 1., First, That the matters contained in them
“are divine, high, and beyond man’s reason, as the Trinity,
the Creation of nothing, &c. These matters indeed are above
“human reason, and therefore are we to bring faith to believe
“them, not human reason to comprehend them. But they are
“ delivered in Scripture in as plain terms as such matter can be.
“ Object. 2. Peter saith, That some things in Paul’s Epistles
“ are hard, and wrested by unlearned and unstable men. (2 Pet.
“11, 16.) First, he saith not that all Paul’s Epistles are hard,
“ but something in them, which we grant. Secondly, They are
“the wicked and unsettled in knowledge that wrest them, as
“ gluttons and drunkards abuse meat and drink. Object. 3. If
“ the Scriptures were not dark, what need so many commentaries
4.42 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ uponthem? And why are they so full of parables and allego-
“ vies as they are? THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION IS TO
‘‘ BE FOUND SO PLAIN THAT IT NEEDETH NO COMMENTARY. And
“ commentaries are for other places that are dark, and also to
“ make more large use of Scripture than a new beginner can
“ make of himself, which we see necessary in all human arts
“ and sciences. Further, though the speech of Scripture seem
“hard at first, yet by custom it becometh easy, as reading
“ doth to children. Object.4. The godly eunuch saith, he could
“ not understand the Scripture without an interpreter. (Acts
“ viii, 81.) Though he understood not some dark places, yet
“ that hindered him not from reading plainer places. Object. 5.
“ The multitude of learned men that fall into heresies, which
“ they labour to confirm by Scripture, proveth that the Serip-
“ture is dark. Itis their naughty hearts, that come not with an
“ humble and godly affection, that maketh them do so. Object. 6.
“‘ But we see by experience that there are many that daily read
“the Scriptures, and yet understand not the thousandth part
“ofthem. They read them not with care and conscience, with
“ prayer and study, but like the women that are always learning
“ and never come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. ui. 7.)
“ Object. 7. If the Scriptures be so plain and perspicuous,
“ what need is there then of an interpreter? First to unfold
“‘ obscure places. (Acts viii. 81.) Secondly, to inculeate and
“ apply plain texts. (2 Pet. i. 12, 13. 1 Cor. xiv. 3.)”?
“ Although there be some hard things in the Scripture,
“ especially suchas have proper relation to the times m which
“ they were first uttered, and prophecies of things which were
“ afterwards to be fulfilled, yet all things necessary to be known
“ unto everlasting salvation, are clearly delivered therein ; and
“ nothing of that kind is spoken under dark mysteries mm one
“ place which is not in other places spoken more familiarly and
“ plainly, to the capacity both of learned and unlearned.” *
“ The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salva-
“ tion, AND are able to instruct sufficiently in all points of faith
“ that we are bound to believe, and all good duties that we are
“ bound to practise.” ὃ
1 Body of Div. Art. 1. pp. 18—20. 2 Trish Articles, Art. 5.
3 Ib. Art. 6.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 443
I proceed to the fifth position, respecting which we have the
following testimony.
“ Q. How may it appear that this book, which you call the
“ Book of God and the Holy Scripture, is the word of God
“ indeed, and not men’s policies? A. By the constant testimony
“ of men in all ages, from them that first knew these penmen of
“the Holy Ghost, with their writings, until our time; AND
“ reasons taken out of the works themselves agreeable to the quality
“of the writers. Both which kinds of arguments the Holy
“ Scriptures have as much and far more than any other writings.
“ Wherefore, as it were extreme impudency to deny the works
“ of Homer, Plato, Virgil, Tully, Livy, Galen, and such like,
‘* which the consent of all ages has received and delivered unto
“us, which also by the tongue, phrase, matter, and all other
“* circumstances agreeable, are confirmed to be the works of the
“ same authors whose they are testified to be ; so it were more
“ than brutish madness to doubt of the certain truth and autho-
“rity of the Holy Scriptures, which no less but much more
“than any other writings for their authors, are testified and
““ confirmed to be the sacred word of the ever-living God. Not
* only testified, I say, by the uniform witness of men in all ages,
“ but also confirmed by such reasons taken out of the writings
“ themselves, as do sufficiently argue the Spirit of God to be the
* Author of them. For we may learn out of the testimonies
“ themselves, as David did, Ps. οχιχ. 152, that God hath
“ established them for ever. Q. Let me hear some of those
“yeasons which prove that God is the Author of the Holy
“ Scriptures? A. First, the true godliness and holiness where-
“ with the writers of the Scriptures shined as lamps in their
“ times, and far surpassed all men of other religions. .....
“2. The simplicity, integrity, and sincerity of these writers in
““ matters that concern themselves, and those that belong unto
“them. .... 8. The quality and condition of the penmen of
“ these holy writings. .... 4. The matter of the Holy Scrip-
“ turebeing altogether of heavenly doctrine... .. 5. The doctrine
“ of the Scripture is such as could never breed in the brains
“of man. .... 6, The sweet concord between these writings.
“ .... 7. A continuance of wonderful prophecies, foretelling
444 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ things to come so long before. .... 8. The great majesty
“ full of heavenly wisdom and authority. ....- 9. In speaking
“of matters of the highest nature, they go not about to
“ persuade men by reasons as philosophers and orators, but
“ absolutely require credit to be given to them because the
“ Lord hath spoken it. ..... 10. The end and scope of the
“ Scriptures is for the advancement of God’s glory and the
“ς salvation of man’s soul. ..... 11. The admirable power and
“ force that is in them to convert and alter men’s minds. ....
«15. The Scriptures, as experience showeth, have the power of
“God im them: ἐπ 0% 13. The writers of the Holy Scriptures
‘are the most antient of all others. ..... 14. The deadly
«ς hatred that the devil and all wicked men carry against the
eoScriptures.’ τ τ τς 15. The marvellous preservation of the
“}Seripunres. ‘eos; Q. Show now how the Holy Scriptures
‘« have the consonant testimony of men of all times since they
‘‘ were written, that they are the most holy word of God.....
«« A, [Here, having spoken of the testimony borne to Moses by
‘* Joshua, and the testimony of other writers of the Old Testa-
“« ment to their predecessors in the Canon, he adds,| Finally,
« from that time [i.e. the time of Malachi] the Church of the
«« Jews, until the coming of Christ in the flesh, embraced all the
‘« former writings of the prophets as the book of God. Christ
“ς himself appealeth unto them as a sufficient testimony of him.
«« John v. 89. The Apostles and Evangelists prove the writings
« of the New Testament by them; and the Catholic Church of
«* Christ from the Apostles’ time unto this day, hath acknow-
«« ledged all the said writings, both of the Old and New Testa-
<‘ ment, to be the undoubted word of God. Thus have we the
«« testimony both of the Old Church of the Jews, God’s peculiar
«« people and first-born, to whom the oracles of God were com-
<< mitted, (Acts vii. 38. Hos. vi. 12. Rom. ii. 2, and ix. 4.)
‘«< and the New of Christians, together with the general account
<< which all the godly at all times have made of the Scriptures,
«« when they have crossed their natures and courses, as account-
‘ing it in their souls to be of God; and the special testimony
“ of martyrs, who have sealed the certainty of the same by
« shedding their blood for them. Hereunto also may be added
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 445
κε the testimony of those which are out of the Church, heathens,
“‘ out of whom many antient testimonies are cited to this pur-
‘“‘ pose by Josephus contra Appion., Turks, Jews, who to this
“ day acknowledge all the books of the Old Testament, and
“4 heretics who labour to shroud themselves under them, &c.
* Q. Are there not some divine testimonies which may likewise
ἐς be added to these? A. Yes; First, the known miracles,
““ which the devil was never able to do, that did so often follow
“the writers and teachers of the Scriptures. Secondly, the
‘* manifold punishments and destruction of those that have
“‘ yeviled and persecuted the same. Q. Are these motives of
“6 themselves sufficient to work saving faith, and persuade us
«« fully to rest in God’s word? A. No; Besides all these, it is
“ὁ required, that we have the Spirit of God as well to open our
*< eyes to see the light, as to seal up fully unto our hearts that
‘« truth which we see with our eyes. For the same Holy Spirit
‘that inspired the Scriptures, inclineth the hearts of God’s
“‘ children to believe what is revealed in them, and inwardly as-
“* sureth them, above all reasons and arguments, that these are the
‘« Scriptures of God. Therefore the Lord, by the prophet Isaiah,
“6 promiseth to join his Spirit with his word, and that it shall
“6 remain with his children for ever. Isa. lix. 21. The same pro-
‘«« miseth our Saviour Christ unto his disciples concerning the
«« Comforter, which he would send to lead them into all truth, to
‘“« teach them all things, and to put them in mind of all things
‘«« which he had said unto them. John xiv. 26. and xy. 26. and
«‘ xvi. 23. The Lord, by the prophet Jeremiah, also promiseth
“< to give his law into their minds, and to write it in the hearts
«« of his people. Jer. xxxi. 33. And St. John saith to the faithful,
‘« that by the anointing of the Holy Spirit which is on them,
“ they know all things. 1 John 11. 20. This testimony of God’s
“ Spirit in the hearts of his faithful, as it is proper to the word of
“« God, so is it greater than any human persuasions grounded upon
“ reason or witnesses of men.” —“ They {i. 6. the Papists] object
“ that it is by Tradition and not by Scripture that we know such
“ and such books to be Scripture. Though new beginners do first
“learn it from the faithful, yet afterwards they know it upon
“ grounds of Scripture. As an ignorant man may be told of the
446 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“« king’s coin, but it is not that telling but the king’s stamp that
“ maketh it current and good coin.” Ὁ
I proceed to
BisHor JEREMY TAYLOR.
To the testimony of this learned and able Prelate, Mr. Keble
justly attaches much importance ; and therefore, besides the ex-
tract from him in the “ Catena,” he is quoted at some length in
the Postscript to the Sermon,” and claimed as a supporter of
the system under review. Where lies the force of the passage
in the “ Catena” to prove the truth of Mr. Keble’s views, I
confess I cannot see. Nay, in that passage (taken from the
Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 1. bk. 1. § L.) the bishop says,—
“ To these [i. 6. the Scriptures] we also add, not as authors or
“ finishers, but as helpers of our faith, and heirs of the doctrine
“ apostolical, the sentiments and catholic doctrine of the Church
“ of God in the ages next after the Apostles.” “ Any number
“ that is less than all, does not prove a catholic consent.” “ We
“ do easily acknowledge, that to dispute these questions from
“ the sayings of the Fathers, is not the readiest way to make an
“ end of them; but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures
“ as the foundation and final resort of al] our persuasions, and
“ from thence can never be confuted; but we also admit the
“ Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Serip-
“ tures, and as good testimony of the doctrine delivered from
“ their forefathers down to them, of what the Church esteemed
“ the way of salvation; and therefore if we find any doctrine
“ now taught which was not placed in their way of salvation, we
** reject it as being no part of the Christian faith, and which ought
“ not to be imposed upon consciences’’—i. e. in vital points, he
admits the testimonies of the Fathers negatively, as proof
against novel doctrines.
True, he says,— It is not easy to find a better [sword to
““ combat the errors of the Romanists] than the word of God, ex-
“ pounded by the prime and best antiquity.” But this proves
nothing more, than that the bishop held, that the expositions of:
1 Body of Div. Art. 1. pp. 6—10, 17.
2 Pp. 68—73, and 80, 81.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 447
that antiquity, the authority of which the Romanists acknow-
ledged, were good arguments for their confutation. For his own
views as to their use or authority, we must look further; and
we find them abundantly manifested in the very work from which
this extract is taken.
Before, however, we proceed to the passages we are about to
quote, there are some extracts in the Postscript of the Sermon
to be considered, and particularly an alleged change of views in
Bishop Taylor on this matter.
In his “ Liberty of Prophesying,” published in 1647, and
republished by the author in 1657, and his “ Ductor Dubitan-
tium,” or Rule of Conscience, published in 1660, only seven
years before his death, there are some passages admitted to be
very inconsistent with the views of the Tractators. It ap-
pears, however, that in a sermon to his clergy between 1660
and 1664, there are some passages supposed to be favorable
to them ; and accordingly Mr. Keble intimates, that his views
underwent a change on these points at that time; and Bishop
Jebb (as quoted by Mr. Keble) hesitates not to say, “" Vincen-
*« tius’ rule.... has been unreservedly acknowledged as a just
““ and true guide by Bishop Taylor, in one of his latest works,
““ his Visitation Sermon at Connor; ἃ tribute this last the more
“ὁ remarkable, because, in his Liberty of Prophesying, and in his
“ Ductor Dubitantium, he had spoken less respectfully of the
‘* principle ; and his remarkable change of language can be ac-
counted for only by his having undergone a correspondent
“change of sentiment. He had seen, felt, and weighed every
“< difficulty ; the result of all was a deliberate persuasion that
““ Vincentius was right, and that he himself had been wrong.” Ὁ
Now it must at once strike the reader as not a little extra-
ordinary, that such a change should have taken place in such a
case. And before the assertion was ventured that Bishop Taylor
had changed his mind in a matter of such moment, and one in
which he had repeatedly stated his views, in very clear and
strong language, and that, in his greatest and most elaborate
work, the ‘‘ Ductor Dubitantium,” it would have been well to
have referred to his last work, viz. the Second Part of the Dis-
“
“ce
1 ForstEr’s Life of Jebb, lett. 53. ii. 249.
448 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
suasive from Popery, which was passing through the press at the
time of his death in 1667, and published shortly after. Would
not any ordinary reader suppose, that there was no testimony
subsequent to that sermon, by which the views of Bishop Tay-
lor could be ascertained? And is it fair thus to keep back part
of the case? And with the existence of this work Mr. Keble is
well acquainted ; for, as we have seen, the extract in his Catena
is taken from the first part of it.
I commend the following passage from that work to the at-
tention of the reader. “I shall now,” he says, “" represent the
‘uncertainty and fallibility of the pretence of traditions in
‘< ordinary, and the certain deceptions of those who trust them,
‘« and the impossibility of ending many questions by them....
«« This topic of pretended tradition is the most fallible thing in
«the world.... Add to this, that the world is not agreed
‘about the competency of the testimony, or what is sufficient
‘« to prove tradition to be apostolical. Some require and allow
‘* only the testimony of the present Catholic Church, to prove
‘“‘a tradition.... But there is a better way ; Vincentius Liri-
“‘ nensis’s way of judging a traditional doctrine to be apostolical
«‘ and divine, is ‘ the consent of all Churches and all ages.’ It
‘is something less than St. Austin requires (Lib. de doctr.
«« Christiana, c. 8.).... He speaks it of the particular of judg-
‘ing what books are canonical ; in which, as tradition 15 the
κε way to judge, so the rule of tradition is ‘ the consent of most
“οὗ the Catholic Churches, particularly those places where the
“« This way of St. Austin is of great and approved use in the
«« knowing what books are canonical; and in these things it can
‘be had, in some more, in some less, in all more than can be
‘* said against it; and there is nothing in succeeding times to
*< sive a check to our assent in their degrees, because the longer
** the succession runs, still the more the Church was established
‘init. But yet concerning those books of Scripture, of which
“10 was long doubted in the Church whether they were part of
“ the Apostolical Canon of Scripture, there ought to be no pre-
“* tence that they were delivered for such by the Apostles; at
“Ὁ Jeast not by those Churches who doubted of them...... the
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 449
““ consequent will be that TRADITION IS AN UNCERTAIN THING;
“and if it cannot be entire and full in assigning the Canon of
** Scripture, it is hardly to be trusted for anything else which con-
*< sists of words subject to divers interpretations. But, in other
“‘ things, it may be, the case is not so; for we find that, in
“4 divers particulars, to prove a point to be a tradition apostolical,
** use 1s made of the testimony of the three first ages. Indeed,
** these are the likeliest to know; but yet they have told us of some
** things to be traditions, which we have no reason to believe to be
“ such. ONLY THUS FAR THEY ARE USEFUL ; if they never re-
“ ported a doctrine, it is the less likely to descend from the
** Apostles ; and if the order of succession be broken anywhere,
“« the succeeding ages can never besurer. If they speak against
‘a doctrine, as, for example, against the half communion, we
“are sure it was no tradition apostolical ; if they speak not
“at all of it, we can never prove the tradition; for it may
“ have come in since that time, and yet come to be thought or
* called ‘ tradition apostolical’ from other causes, of which I
“ have given account. AND, INDEED, THERE IS NO SECURITY
“* SUFFICIENT, BUT THAT WHICH CAN NEVER BE HAD, AND THAT
“IS THE UNIVERSAL POSITIVE TESTIMONY OF ALL THE CHURCH
“or Curist; which [adds Bishop Taylor, applying these
“ GENERAL remarks on tradition in the abstract, to the particular
“‘ case with which he was then dealing,] he that looks for in the
“ disputed traditions, pretended by the Church of Rome, may
“look as long as the Jews do for their wrong Messias. So
“ much as this is, can never be had; and less than this, will
“ never do it.”}
This is but one of many similar passages in this work, some
of which I shall adduce presently ; but this alone may, I think,
be allowed to decide the question as to Bishop Taylor’s alleged
change of views in this matter, as far as points of faith are con-
cerned. The fact is, it is only necessary to put together what
he has said in his “ Ductor Dubitantium ” on this point, and
observe his whole mind upon it, to see that in all that he has
said respecting it in these various works, at /east as far as con-
cerns points of faith, he has taken precisely the same ground.
1 Diss. from Pop. Pt. 2. Bk. 1. Sect. 3. § 6. Works, ed. by Heber. x. 441—51.
VOL. III. GG
450 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
It will be observed that in the passage just quoted from the
Second Part of the Dissuasive, Bishop Taylor allows the use-
fulness of Church-Tradition, (1) in its testimony respecting the
Canon of Scripture, (though widely differing from our oppo-
nents as to the extent of that usefulness;) and also (2) nega-
tively as to doctrines, 1. e., that its absence throws suspicion on
a doctrine, and its opposition is sufficient to condemn it; and
in the next chapter he admits (3) the authority of the Creed, as
an Apostolical tradition, on the testimony of the early Church.
Now this is precisely the ground he had taken in his “ Ductor
Dubitantium ;” where he says, as it respects the first, “The
“next inquiry is, What use there is of traditions; and if they
“ cannot be a part of the rule, what aids do they bring to the
“ conscience in faith or manners? ‘To this I answer, that tra-
“ dition is of great use for the conveying of this great rule of
“ conscience, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa-
“ ment.”! Proceeding, a little further on, to the consideration
of the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, he says, (2), “ If we begin
“ to account by this rule of Vincentius, and go backwards, it is
“ nothing, unless we go back as far as to the Apostles inclu-
“ sively ; but if we begin there, and make that clear, it matters
“ not how little a way it descends; and, therefore, although it
is an excellent rule to reprove vain and novel pretensions, yet
“there is nothing to be proved by it practicably.”? Again,
“The third rule is, ‘ Whatsoever the Catholic Church hath
“kept in all ages by-gone, may rightly be believed to have de-
“ scended from the Apostles, though it be such a thing which
“ might have been instituted by the Church.’ This rule is the
“ same with that of Lirinensis, of which I have already given
“account ; and certainly in those things in which it can be
“ made use of, which are extremely few, it 1s the best, and, indeed,
“ the only good one. But then this can relate only to rituals, not
“to matter of doctrine... . By this rule the distinction of
“ Bishops and Presbyters is an Apostolical tradition, besides
“ the Scriptures, by which it appears to be divine; by this the
“ consecration of the blessed Eucharist by ecclesiastical persons,
1 Book ii. ch. 3. Rule 14. vol. xiii. p. 114.
Ὁ ἘΠ ὍΣ 1515
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 451
“ bishops and priests, is certainly a tradition Apostolical ; by
“ this the Lord’s Day is derived to us from the Apostles; and
“by this the baptism of infants is much confirmed unto the
“ Church ; and whatsoever can descend to us, and be observed
“ in this channel, there is no sufficient reason to deny it to be
“ Apostolical.”! And then (3) further on, coming to the con-
sideration of the Apostles’ Creed, he says, after having quoted
the testimonies of the Fathers respecting it, “Since, as Sixtus
Senensis says, that ‘ All the orthodox Fathers affirm the Creed
** to be made by the Apostles ;” and they all say this is a suffi-
“ cient rule of faith for all Christians; here we ought to rest
“ our heads and our hearts, and not to intricate our faith by
“ more questions.”” How far he is correct on this last point,
the reader may judge from the testimonies in c. 4 above. The
statement of Sixtus Senensis appears to have been too much
relied upon by him.
Now in the sermon from which Mr. Keble quotes, and to
which Bishop Jebb refers, as indicating a change of views re-
specting the value of Church-Tradition, the Bishop says, “ Next
“ to this analogy or proportion of faith, let the consent of the
““ Catholic Church be your measure, so as by no means to pre-
* varicate in any doctrine in which all Christians always have
“ consented. This will appear to be a necessary rule by-and-
“ bye; but in the mean time I shall observe to you that it will
“ be the safer, because it CANNOT GO FAR; it can be instanced
“BUT IN THREE THINGS, In THE CREED, in ECCLESIASTICAL
* GOVERNMENT, and in EXTERNAL FORMS OF WORSHIP AND
* yiturGy.” And then he proceeds to enumerate some of the
more important points of ecclesiastical government, and forms of
worship and liturgy, in which “all Christians ever have con-
sented,” as the observation of the Lord’s Day, episcopacy, bap-
tism, &e. Now here the allowance of Vincentius’s rule is just
in those points, and in those points only, in which it was al-
lowed in the “ Ductor Dubitantium,” i. e. in the Creed and in
rituals, in matters which the Church hath always practised, and
the very same instances, viz. episcopacy, baptism, &c. are given
in both cases; to which no doubt, had his subject led him to it
1 Tb, p. 138. 2 Ib. p. 168.
662
«τ
452 DOCTRINE Of CHURCH OF ENGLAND
in the sermon, he would have added, as in the other treatises,
the use of Tradition for conveying the Canon of Scripture, and
negatively in matters of faith.
Consequently, as it respects matters of faith, there is no evi-
dence, in his sermon, of any change of mind as to the applica-
tion or value of the rule of Vincentius; and further, there is
evidence, from his very last work, the Second Part of the Dis-
suasive from Popery, that there was no such change.
And I will here add another passage in proof of this, from
the same work, i. 6. the Second Part of the Dissuasive. —
“ But to come closer to the thing; Suppose tradition of fact
“ to be certain, for so it is in many instances, and if it be uni-
“ versal, it will be allowed to be so in all ; yet it is but so certain,
“that yet there is a natural possibility that it should be false ;
“and it is possible that what the generality of one sort of men
« do jointly testify, may yet be found false, or at least uncer-
“tain; as the burial of Mahomet in Mecca, and his being
“ attracted by a loadstone, of which the Mahometans have a
“long and general tradition, at least we in Christendom are
“ made to believe so; and if it be not so, yet it is naturally
“ possible that they should all beheve and teach a lie, and they
* actually do so; yet I will allow ecclesiastical Catholic Tradition,
speaking morally, to be certain and indubitable; and that if
“ this should fail, much of our comfort and certainty of adhe-
“ rence to Christian religion would fail with it; but then it is
““ [ρ be considered that THE CERTAINTY Or TRADITION, WHICH
“ 13 ALLOWED, IS BUT IN MATTERS OF FACT, NOT IN DOCTRINES ;
“ because the fact may be one, the doctrines many; that soon
“ remembered, these soon forgotten ; that perceived by sense, these
“ mistaken and misunderstood ; and though it is very credibly
“ reported, and easily believed, that Julius Cesar was killed in
“ the senate, yet all that he said that day, and all the unwritten
“ orders he made, and ali his orations, will not, cannot so easily
“be trusted upon oral tradition. So that oral tradition is a
“ good ministry of conveying a record, but it is not the best
“ record ; and the principal office of oral tradition is done, when
“ the record is verified by it, when the Scripture is consigned ;
“ and though still it is useful, yet it is not still so necessary. ...
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 453
“ The effect of this discourse is this: That oral tradition may
“be very certain ; and, in some case, is the best evidence we
“ have in matters of fact, unless where we are taught by sense or
“ revelation ; and if it were not certain, we should be infinitely
“ to seek for notices of things that are past ; but this is but a
“ moral certainty, though it be the best we have; and THIS 18
“ BUT IN MATTERS OF FACT, NOT IN DOCTRINES, OR ORATIONS,
“OR NOTIONS DELIVERED IN MANY WorDs; and after all this,
“when tradition hath consigned an instrument or record, a
“writing or a book, it may then leave being necessary; and
“when the providence of God undertakes to supply the testi-
* mony of man, the change is for our advantage.” !
Nay, Mr. Keble himself tells us, that Bishop Taylor’s view in
this matter was, “that in practical matters it [1. 6. Tradition]
“ may be verified; but IN DOCTRINAL, WITH THE EXCEPTION
“or THE CREED, 11 cannot.” (p. 71.) This yields the whole
question.
His notion respecting the Creed, that the testimony of the
Fathers proves it to be an Apostolical composition, 15 of course
opposed to that which I have maintained in the fourth chapter,
where I have endeavoured to show that such a notion has no
sufficient foundation to rest upon; and that, be the authority of
the Fathers what it may, their testimony is not to be had for this
point. But his notion in this matter touches not any of the
main points of the system under review.
As it respects points of ecclesiastical polity, his language in
the sermon may seem, at first view, stronger than might have
been expected; but upon consideration we shall, I think, find
that there is no real inconsistency in his statements ; and that
they are practically and essentially confirmatory of our views.
He says, in the “ Ductor,” “ Whatever can descend to us and
“ be observed in this channel, [i. e. Church-Tradition,] there is
“ no sufficient reason to deny it to be Apostolical ; but then how
« far it can be obligatory to all ages, and to all Churches, will be
«© another consideration.’ ? He here seems to admit, like some
of the Fathers, that Church-Tradition might be found for some
rites, sufficient at least to render it probable that they had
1 Introd.; Works, vol. x. 280, 281. 2 Works, vol. xiii. p. 139.
4.54. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Apostolical sanction ; but then he thinks this insufficient to
prove their perpetual obligation ; which practically makes the
admission of little importance.
Now let us proceed to see how he speaks of the same matter
in his Zast work, the second part of the Dissuasive. “That any
“ oy more of these [i. 6. the Apostolical] Churches did or did
“ not do so, is no argument that such a custom came from the
“ Apostles ; or if it did, that it did oblige succeeding ages, unless
*‘ this custom began by a doctrine, and that the tradition came
«from the Apostles with a declaration of its perpetual obliga-
“tion ;?! and for the doctrine in such a case he tells us we must go
to Scripture. Thus as to the baptism of children he says, “ The
“matter of fact is indifferent if abstracted from the doctrine.
“‘ For at the first they did or they did not according as they
“ pleased, for there is no pretence of Tradition that the Church
“in all ages did baptize all the infants of Christian parents. . . .
“« But then, if we consider the doctrine appendant to it... . the
“ proper reasons why the Church baptizes infants. ... are wholly
« derived to us from Scripture grounds.”... . “ It was but weakly
“ said by Cardinal Perron, that there is no place of Scripture
“ by which we can evidently and necessarily convince the Anabap-
“tists. For....although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude
“ the arguments of Scripture, yet it follows not that Scripture
“is not clear and certain im the article....Jf the Anabaptists
“ sneak probably and reasonably in their answers, then it will
“rather follow that the point is Not NECESSARY, than that it
““ must be proved necessary by some other topic. All people that
* believe baptism of infants necessary, think that they sufficiently
“ prove it from Scripture ; and Bellarmine, though he also urges
“ this point as an argument for Tradition [as our opponents do],
“ yet, upon wiser thoughts, he proves it, and not unsuccessfully, by
“ three arguments from Scripture.” * “ Although we are able to
“ prove this [i. 6. that two sacraments only are generally neces-
“ sary to salvation] by a tradition much more universal than by
“ which the Roman doctors can prove seven, yet we rely upon
** Scripture for our doctrine.”* Other similar passages might
1 Works, x. 450. 2 ΤΌ. x. 480—33. 3 Ib. x. p. 438,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 455
be added, particularly as to the observance of the Lord’s day."
So that even should it be admitted, that Church-Tradition may
convey to us the knowledge of some apostolically-instituted rites
and customs, yet he does not allow the authority of that Church-
Tradition to bind us to the observance of them, unless the Serip-
ture clearly lays down a doctrine prescribing them as of perpetual
obligation.
In this latter work, then, so far from having receded from his
unfavorable opinion of Tradition, he intimates, that the practice
of the primitive Churches cannot even prove that a custom was
derived from the Apostles, and still more strongly maintains, that
if it did, it did not oblige succeeding ages, unless it was
grounded upon doctrine laid down in the Scriptures.
Now in the intermediate time between the writing of these
two works, he says to his clergy, after mentioning the Lord’s
day, baptism, episcopacy, confirmation, public forms of prayer,
&e. (the observation of which he elsewhere places upon Scrip-
tural grounds,) “ He that shall prophesy or expound Scripture
“ to the prejudice of any of these things, hath no part in that
“ article of his Creed, he does not believe the holy Catholic
“ Church, he hath no fellowship, no communion with the saints
“ and servants of God.’’*
I can see no opposition in this passage to his statements
elsewhere. He does not put forward anything here on the
ground of Apostolical Tradition. All that he avers is, that such
and such observances are enjoined in Scripture, and had been
practised for centuries in (speaking generally) the Universal
Church, and consequently that he who interpreted Scripture
contrary to them, was opposing himself to the whole Church.
But this does not show, that he did not throughout place the
onus of proof for their perpetual obligation upon Scripture.
At any rate, he did this in the last work he wrote, when his
views were in their most mature state. And in this work he
does not, like the Tractators, tell us that Scripture is so obscure
on these points that it needs Tradition to unfold its meaning to
us, and that the only ground upon which we can rest the cor-
rectness of our interpretation of the brief and obscure notices of
1 Tb. x. 436, 7. 2 Works, vi. p. 521.
456 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Scripture respecting them, is the testimony of Church-Tradition.
No, he points to Scripture as delivering clearly to us all im-
portant points, as we shall see presently. And in his sermon
to his clergy he seems evidently to have had in view more
especially the case of individuals who attempted to prove from
Scripture that such things were unlawful, and separated from the
Church on account of them, whose presumption he justly
rebukes, and guards his clergy against the influence of those
domestic malcontents who might mislead them.
Viewing the different circumstances under which he was
speaking, his statements appear to me easily reconcileable with
one another. Will Mr. Keble, indeed, contend, that he said one
thing in 1660, another in 1664, and in 1667 went back to his
views of 1660 ?.
I must also add, that in his last work he gives some very
useful remarks and stringent cautions as to the admission of
pretended Apostolical traditions in rituals. For aught appears
“ to the contrary,” he says, “ many traditions were two or three
“ hundred years old the first day they were born ; and it is not
“ easy to reckon by what means the Fathers came or might
* come to admit many things to be Tradition ; and themselves
“ were not sure: therefore they made rules of their conjecture,
“ presumptions, and sometimes weak arguments. It will be
“ much more hard for us to tell which are right and which are
“ wrong, who have nothing but thei rules, which were then
“ but conjectural, and are since proved in many instances to be
“improbable. Such is that rule of St. Austin, (De bapt. contr.
““ Donat. lib. iv. ὁ. 24. and c. 6.), ‘ Whatsoever was anciently
“received and not instituted, so far as men looking back may
“ observe, by posterity, that is, not decreed by councils, may
“ most rightly be believed to descend from Apostolical tradition,’
“ (the famous rule so often quoted]; that is, if we do not know
“ the beginning of a universal custom, we may safely conclude
“it to be primitive and apostolic. Which kind of rule is some-
“ thing like what a witty gentleman said of an old man and an
“old woman in Ireland ; that if they should agree to say that
“they were Adam and Eve, no man living could disprove them.
“. .. . It is certain this rule is but a precarious pitiful pre-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 457
_“ sumption, since every antient custom that any succeeding age
“hath a mind to continue, may, for the credit of it, and the
“ ignorance of the original, like new upstart gentlemen, be en-
* titled to an honourable house. ‘ Every one believes the com-
“ mandments of his ancestors to be traditions apostolical,’ said
“ St. Jerome ; and that these came in by private authority, and
“ yet obtained a public name, we have competent warranty from
“ Tertullian, (De Cor. Mil. c. 4.) who justifies it thus far, ‘ Do
“you not think it lawful for every faithful man to appoint
“ whatever he thinks may please God unto discipline and sal-
“vation? And St. Irenzus tells (ap. Euseb. lib. [V.] c. 26.)
“ that the variety of keeping Lent, which puts in strongly also
“to be an Apostolical tradition, began among his ancestors,
*“¢who did not accurately observe their customs, who, by a
“ certain simplicity or private authority, appointed anything for
“ their posterity.’ So that here it is apparent, that every private
“man that was of an antient standing in the Church might
“introduce customs and usages which himself thought pious.
« And next it is also evident, that when these customs derived
“ from their ancestors happened to continue in a lasting use,
“their posterity was apt to call them traditions apostolical :
“ according to Tertullian, who confessed this very thing. Thus
“ things indifferent being esteemed useful or pious, became cus-
“‘tomary, and then came for reverence into a putative and
“ usurped authority ; but they who, having this warning from
“ the very persons whence the mistake comes, will yet swallow
“the hook, deserve to live upon air and fancy, and to chew
“ deceit. But this topic of pretended tradition is the most
“ fallible thing in the world ; for it is discovered of some things
“ that are called Apostolical Tradition that they had their original
“ of being so esteemed upon the authority and reputation of one
“man... . the Gospel of Nicodemus, so far as yet appears,
was author of the pretended tradition of the signing with the
“ sion of the cross at every motion of the body; and led Ter-
“tullian and St. Basil, and in consequence the Churches of
succeeding ages, into the practice of it. A little thing will
“ draw on a willing mind ; and nothing is so credulous as piety
“ and timorous religion; and nothing was more fearful to dis-
458 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“please God and curious to please him than the primitive
“ Christians, and everything that would invite them to what
“ they thought pious was sure to prevail; and how many such
“ pretences might enter in at this wide door, every man can
** easily observe.”?
On this point, however, I shall not enlarge, but proceed at
once to the passages more immediately relating to our present
subject, which, to avoidall cavil, I shall take from Bishop Taylor’s
last work, the second part of his Dissuasive.
On the first point we have the following testimony.
* That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians
‘in faith and manners, a full and perfect declaration of the will
“ of God, is therefore certain, because we haveno other. For if
“ we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the
“ Scriptures to be the word of God, the same grounds prove
“ that nothing else is..... A doctrine is neither more nor less
“ the word of God for being written or unwritten; that is but
“ΚΞ accidental and extrinsecal to it ; for it was first unwritten, and
“then the same thing was written: only when it was written it
“ was better conserved and surer transmitted, and not easily
“ altered, and more fitted to be a rule. And indeed only can be
“so: not but that every word of God is as much a rule as any
“word of God; but we are sure that what is so written and
“‘ so transmitted is God’s word, WHEREAS CONCERNING OTHER
“ THINGS WHICH WERE NOT WRITTEN, WE HAVE NO CERTAIN
“ RECORDS, NO EVIDENT PROOF, NO SUFFICIENT CONVICTION,
“ and therefore it is not capable of being owned as the Rule of
“ faith or life, because we do not know it to be the word of God.” ?
“ When the Apostles were all dead, then that apostasy foretold
“ began to appear, and heresies of which the Church was warned
“ began to arise. But it is greatly to be remarked, there was
“ then no heresy that pretended any foundation from Scripture,
“ but from Tradition many : for it was accounted so glorious a
“ thing to have been taught by an Apostle, that even good men
“ were willing to believe anything which their scholars pretended to
“ have heard their masters preach. . . . . How many of those
1 Pt. 2. bk. 1. ὃ 3. Works, x. pp. 444—7.
2 Pt. 2. bk. 1. § 2. x. 384, 5.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 459
“ [traditions] who did descend and pass on to custom were of a
“ true and apostolical original, and how many were not so, it
“‘ will be impossible to find now; only, because we are sure
“ there was some false dealing in this matter, and we know
“there might be much more than we have discovered, we
“have no reason to rely upon any tradition for ANY PART of
© our faith.” }
As it respects the second and third points, we may judge of
Bishop Taylor’s views from the following passages :—“ The truth,
* fulness, and sufficiency of Scripture in a// matters of faith and
“ manners is the principle that I and all Protestants rely upon.
« And although this be not a first and self-evident principle,
“yet it is resolved into these that are. 1. Whatsoever God
“hath said is true. 2. Whatsoever God hath done is good.
« 3. Whatsoever God intends to bring to pass, he hath appomted
“ means sufficient to that end. Now since God hath appointed
“the Scriptures to instruct us and make us wise unto salvation,
* and to make the man of God perfect, certain it is that this
“ means must needs be sufficient to effect that end. Now that
* God did do this to this end, to them that believe the Scrip-
“ tures to be the word of God, is as evident as any first principle.
« And let these Scriptures be weighed together, and see what
“ they do amount to. ‘Search the Scriptures, for therein ye
“ think to have eternal life.’ (John v. 39.) .... But then to
“ this add what more concerns the New Testament; when St.
*« Luke wrote his Gospel, in his preface he tells us, ‘ that many
“had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those
* things which are most surely believed amongst us Christians,
“and that he having perfect understanding of all things, viz.
“ which Christ did and taught, from the very first, did write this
* Gospel, that Theophilus might know the certainty of those
“ things in which he had been instructed’ Now here, if we
“believe St. Luke, was no want of anything; he was fully
* instructed in all things, and he chose to write that book, that
“ by that book Theophilus might know the truth, yea the cer-
tainty of all things. Now if we be Christians, and believe
« St. Luke to be divinely-inspired, this is not indeed a first but
“an evident principle, that a book of Scripture can make a man
1 ΤΌ. § 3. pp. 419, 20.
460 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ certain and instructed in the whole gospel of Jesus Christ. To
“ the same purpose is that of St. John (John xx. 31.), ‘ These
“ things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
“ Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life
“ through his name.’ The end is salvation by Jesus Christ ; the
ἐς means of effecting this was this writing, the Gospel by St.
“ John, and therefore it is a sure principle for Christians to rely
“upon, the word of God, written by men divinely-inspired, such
“ as Christians believe and confess St. Luke and St. John to be.
« . ... Let us hear what St. Paul saith in an Epistle written,
“ as it is probable, not long before his death. . . . . ‘ Continue
“ thou in the things which thou hast learned, &c.’ (2 Tim. ui.
“14. 17.) Now I demand, does J.S. believe these words to be
“true? Are the Scriptures able to make us wise unto salva-
“tion? Are they profitable to all intents and purposes of the
“ Spirit, that is, to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct?
“Ts the end of all this economy to make a Christian man,
“ yea a Christian bishop, perfect 2 Can he by this dispensation
“ be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and that ‘ by faith
“in Jesus Christ?’ If so, then this is the true principle, the
“« apostolical way, the way of God, the way of salvation.” }
“That it was not lawful for Christians to swear at all, upon
“any account, was unanimously taught by St. Hilary and St.
“ Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and Theophylact.”
And hence he draws the conclusion, that “ a consenting testimony
“ of many Fathers, even of the greatest rank, is no irrefragable
“ argument of the truth or Catholic Tradition.”? “As the
“ Fathers proved themselves fallible, both as such in writing
“ against heretics, and in testifying concerning the Church’s
“ doctrine in their age ; so in the mterpretations of Scripture,
“ in which, although there be no universal consent of Fathers in
‘ any interpretation of Scripture concerning which questions [are]
‘ moved, so the best and most common consent that is, men of
“ great note recede from it,” &c.°
“This is the discourse of that great Christian philosopher
“St. Clement ; from which, besides the direct testimony given
n
n
' Introduction, vol. x. pp. 268—70. 2 Ib. p. 319.
3 Ib. p.821.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 461
“to the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of
“ faith or questions in religion ; we find him affirming that the
“« Scriptures are a certain, and the only, demonstration of these
“things; they are the κριτήριον, ‘ the rule,’ of judging the con-
* troversies of faith ; that the Tradition ecclesiastical, that is, the
“ whole doctrine taught by the Church of God, and preached to all
“ men, is in the Scripture; and therefore that it is the plenary
“ and perfect repository of Tradition, that is, of the doctrine deli-
“ vered by Christ and his Apostles; and they who believe not
“‘ these, are impious. AND LEST ANY MAN SHOULD SAY, THAT
“ “suppose SCRIPTURE DO CONTAIN ALL THINGS NECESSARY
“TO SALVATION, YET IT IS NECESSARY THAT TRADITION, or
“some infallible Church, po EXPOUND THEM, AND THEN IT
“IS AS LONG AS IT IS BROAD, AND COMES TO
“THE SAME ISSUE, Sr. CremMent TELLS US HOW THE
“ SCRIPTURES ARE TO BE EXPOUNDED, SAYING THAT ‘ THEY
“ WHO RELY UPON THEM MUST EXPOUND SCRIPTURES BY
* ScRIPTURES AND BY THE ANALOGY OF FAITH, COMPARING
“ SPIRITUAL THINGS WITH SPIRITUAL, ONE PLACE WITH
“ANOTHER, A PART WITH THE WHOLE, AND ALL BY THE
“ PROPORTION TO THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.” THIS WAS THE
“way oF THE CHurcH IN St. CLemeENT’s tTimME, AND
“ THIS IS THE WAY OF OUR CHURCHES.”!
“ That the canonical Scriptures should be our only and entire
“ rule, we are sufficiently convinced by the title which the
“ Catholic Church gives and always hath given to the Holy
“ Scriptures ; for it is Κανὼν, the ‘rule’ of Christians for their
“ whole religion; the word itself ends this inquiry; for it
“ cannot be a canon if anything be put to it or taken from it,
«said St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and Varinus.” *
And on the great point adduced by Mr. Keble as an instance
of the necessity of Tradition,®? he says,—‘“St. Athanasius,
“ speaking concerning the Nicene Council, made no scruple
* that the question was sufticiently determined concerning the
“ proper divinity of the Son of God, because it was determined
“ and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures; and
“ affirms that ‘the faith so determined was sufficient for the
“reproof of all impiety,’ meaning in the article of Christ’s
I Bk. I. § 2. x. 396, 7. 2 Ib. pp. 412 13. 3 KEBLE’s Serm. pp. 32, 36, 41.
462 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
divinity, ‘ and for the establishment of the orthodox faith in
* Christ.? (De Incarn.) Nay, he affirms that ‘the Catholic
“ Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in
“ religion that is a stranger to Scripture ; it being an evil heart
“ of immodesty to speak those things which are not written.’
« (Exh. ad Mon.) Which words I the rather remark, because
“ this article of the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father
“ is brought as an instance By THE Romanists of the necessity
“ of Tradition to make up the insufficiency of Scripture. But not
“in this only, but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely,
“ that is, the whole truth of the gospel, he affirms the Scriptures
“ to be sufficient.”! And elsewhere, in direct opposition to the
statement of Mr. Keble, that “St. Athanasius and the Nicene
“ Fathers were earnest and constant in resorting to Tradition in
“ order to decide among conflicting interpretations of Scripture,
“ and settle the fundamentals of our most holy faith,’? he says,—
“ At Nice the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was
“ determined.... But whatever it was which was there deter-
* mined, 1] am sure it was not determined by Tradition, but by
SrSerimlurnes a. a When Constantine the Emperor exhorted
“ the Nicene Fathers to concord in the question then to be dis-
“ puted, they being Divine matters, he would they should be
“ ended by the authority of the Divine Scriptures... .. And
“‘ they did 30: 2... And the Arians offered to be tried by
“Traditions. πῆς St. Athanasius did sometimes pretend to it,
* though not always; and this shows that there was no clear,
““ indubitate, notorious, universal Tradition in the question, and if
*‘ there were not such an one, as good none at all..... From
“ all which it is evident that the questions at Nice were not and
** could not be determined by Tradition. 2. That Tradition might
“be and was pretended on both sides. 3. That when it is
“ pretended by the contradicting parties with some probability,
“it can effectually serve neither. 4. That the Tradition the
““ Samosatenians and Arians boasted of had in it much proba-
** bility, when looked upon in its own series and proper state.
“5, That the Divine Scriptures were at that time the best fir-
“ mament of the Church, and defended her from that abuse
1 Ib. p. 403. ? KeEBLE’s Sermon, p. 141.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 463
“which might have been imposed upon her under the title of
“ Tradition.” 1
These passages, while more especially intended, in conformity
with the subject of dispute he had then in hand, to show “ the
sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures fo salvation,” also prove that
he held them to be the only source of all religious truth.
There are, however, other passages also in which he speaks
still more plainly. Thus he says,—% The Scripture is a full
“ and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners.”* “ If
“ we inquire upon what grounds the primitive Church did rely
* for their whole religion, we shall find they knew none else but
“the Scriptures. “ Ubi Scriptum’ was their first inquiry.
“ « To the Prophets and the Apostles, the Evangelists or the
“« Epistles, say so? Read it there, and then teach it; else re-
“ ject it’—they call upon their charges in the words of Christ,
“« ¢ Search the Scriptures.” ? And he brings instances of this
in points evidently non-essential ; as, for instance, the following
from Origen ;—“ Origen, when he propounded a question con-
“ cerning the angels guardians of little children, viz., ‘ When
“ the angels were appointed to them ?—at their birth, or at their
“ baptism ?’—he adds, ‘ You see he that will discuss both of
“ them warily, it is his part to produce Scripture for testimony
“ aoreeing to one of them both.’ That was the way of the doc-
“tors then. And Scripture is so full and perfect to all intents
“and purposes, that, for the confirmation of our discourses,
“ Scripture is to be brought, saith Origen...... It is evident
“that therefore Origen requires testimony of Scriptures, not
“ because of the difficulty of things to be inquired, but because,
“ without such testimony, they are not to be believed. For so
“ are his very words ; and therefore, whether they be easy or
“ hard, if they be not in Scripture, the questions will be inde-
“ terminable.”* Basil, he tells us, says,—“ It is right and it
* is necessary that those things which appertain to use, every
«« one should learn from the Scriptures, both for the replenish-
“ ing of their mind with piety, as also that they may not be ac-
* customed to human traditions.” ‘“ By which words,” says
1 Tb. § 3. pp. 428—30. 2 Bk. i. § 2. x. 384.
3 Pp. 393, 4. 4 Ib. p. 399.
464 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Bishop Taylor, “he not only declares that by the Scriptures
** our minds are abundantly filled with piety ; but that human
* traditions, BY WHICH HE MEANS EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT
“ CONTAINED IN ScrIpTuRE, are not to be received; but ought
“ to be, and are best of all banished from our minds, by enter-
* taining of Scripture.” }
I will add only two more passages on this pomt. “ By St.
** Austin’s doctrine, the Scripture hath enough for every one,
“and in all cases of necessary religion, and much more than
“ what is necessary ; nay, there is nothing besides it that can come
** into our rule. ‘ The Scripture is the consummation or utmost
** bounded rule of our doctrine, that we may not dare to be
*‘ wiser than we ought.’ (Lib. De bon. Viduit.c. 1.) And
*« that, not only in the question of widowhood, but “ in all ques-
““ tions which belong unto life and manners of living,’ as him-
*« self in the same place declares. And it is not only for laics
** and vulgar persons, but for all men; and NoT ONLY FOR WHAT
‘‘ IS MERELY NECESSARY, BUT TO MAKE US WISE, TO MAKE US
‘* PERFECT, SAITH THE APOSTLE, (2 Tim. iu.)”? ‘ The Tradi-
“* tion of Scripture we receive ; but of nothing else but what is in
** Scripture. And if it be asked, why we receive one and not
“‘ the rest, we answer, because we have but one tradition of
‘* things necessary ; that is, there is an universal tradition of
** Scripture, and what concerns it; but none of other things
‘“‘ which are not in Scripture; and there is no necessity we
** should have any ; ALL THINGS necessary and PROFITABLE to
** the salvation of all men being plainly contained in Scriptures.” ὃ
As it respects matters of practice, the extracts already given
show, that, at least as to those that are proposed to us as neces-
sary, he held Scripture warrant to be the only ground upon
which their necessity could be rested. Hence, though he may
sometimes seem to intimate, that the testimony from antiquity
to some such points was sufficient to show their Apostolical
origin, yet both in his Ductor Dubitantium and his Dissuasive,
he grounds their perpetual obligation upon the testimony of
Scripture, not allowing Tradition to be any sufficient proof of a
matter having been delivered by the Apostles as of perpetual ob-
1 Tb, pp. 402, 8. 3 Tb. § 2. p. 411. 3 Tb. § 3. p. 427.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 4.65
ligation. So, also, with respect to others; although he some-
times appeared to consider, that there were some among them
which had a testimony from Church-Tradition sufficient to prove
their Apostolical origin, yet he held that this could not prove
them to be of perpetual obligation; and therefore that whether
they were of Apostolical origin or not, was not of great moment.
Hence, in his last work, he says,—‘‘ There are many ritual mat-
“* ters, customs, and ceremonies, which were, at least it is said
“so, practised by the Apostolical Churches; and some, ἐξ may
“ be, are descended down to us; but, because the Churches prac-
“ tise many things which the Apostles did not, and the Apostles
“did and ordained many things which the Church does not
“ observe, it will not appertain to the question to say, there are,
** or are not, in these things, traditions apostolical.... In these
“Ἢ things let the Church of Rome pretend what traditions apo-
** stolical she please of this nature, the Church may keep them,
“* or lay them aside, according to what they judge is best.”!
And his last judgment appears to be, that there were none
such that could be proved by Tradition to be Apostolical, when
he says, ‘‘ That any or more of these [i. 6. the Apostolical]
““ Churches did or did not do so, is no argument that such a cus-
** tom came from the Apostles.” Even of infant baptism he
says, ‘“‘ That there is a tradition from the Apostles so to do,
‘relies but upon two witnesses, Origen and St. Austin; and
“« the latter having received it from the former, it relies wholly
** upon his single testimony ; which is but a pitiful argument
““ to prove a tradition Apostolical ; &c.’?3
I add below an extract from his most elaborate work, the
* Ductor Dubitantium, or, Rule of Conscience ;” which, if the
reader agrees with me in supposing that there is no evidence of
a change of views in him, such as our opponents imagine, will
still further illustrate his sentiments on the preceding points.*
1 Works, x. 439, 441. 2 ΤΌ. p. 450.
3 Works, x. 432. And see p. 437.
4 « The topic of tradition after the consignation of the Canon of Scripture was
not only of little use in any question of faith or manners, but falsely pretended for
many things ; and is unsafe in all questions of present concernment. In order to
the proof of this, I divide the great heap of traditions, which are shovelled together
by the Church of Rome, into three little heaps ;—1. Of things necessary, or mat:
VOL. 111, HH
466 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
On the fowrth position, or the alleged necessity of Church-
Tradition for the interpretation of Scripture, on account of its
obscurity, his views are thus expressed ;—
“The Protestants believe that the words of Scripture can be
“ as easily understood after they are written im a book, as when
“‘ they were spoken in the Churches of the first Christians ; and
“ the Apostles and Evangelists did write the life of Christ, his
“ doctrines, the doctrines of faith, as plain as they did speak
ters of faith; 2. Of things impertinent to the faith, and unnecessary; 3. Of
things false. The traditions of things necessary are the Trinity of Persons—the
consubstantiality of the eternal Son of God with his Father—the baptism of in-
fants—the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son—and original sin—that the
Father was not begotten—that the Holy Ghost is God, and to be invocated—that
baptism is not to be reiterated—that in Christ there are two natures, and one per-
son. Now that these be appertaining to the faith, I easily grant; but that the
truth of these articles, and so much of them as is certain or necessary, is also in
Scripture, I appeal to all the books of the Fathers, and of all moderns who do
assert them by testimonies from Scripture...... ‘ All the mysteries of Christ’s
nature and person, of his humanity and divinity, are clearly set down in both
Testaments.’ But they are not clearly reported in Tradition: the Fathers having
sometimes spoken in these articles more in the Arian than in the Catholic style,
say Hosius, Gordon, Huntley, Gretser, Tanner, Perron, and Fisher. By Scrip-
tures, therefore, the Church confuted the Arians, the Eutychians, the Nestorians,
the Monothelites, the Photinians, and the Sabellians. The other articles are also
evidently in the words of Scripture, or in the first consequences and deductions,
And when we observe the men of the Church of Rome going about with great
pretensions to confirm all their articles by Scriptures, they plainly invalidate all
pretence of necessity of traditions. If they say that all the Articles of Trent are
not to be found in Scripture, let them confess it plainly, and then go look out for
proselytes. If they say there are Scriptures for all their articles, then Scripture
is sufficient: or else their faith is not. For all these I before reckoned, it is cer-
tain both they and we have from Scripture many proofs; and if there were not, I
believe Tradition would fail us very much; for the heresies which oppugned them
were very early; and they also had customs and pretences of customs to prescribe
Sor their false doctrines, as I shall make appear in the following periods. There
ave also traditions pretended of things which are not necessary, such as are the
fast of Lent—godfathers and godmothers in baptism—the mixture of wine and
water in the eucharistical chalice—the keeping of Easter upon the first day of
the week—trine immersion in baptism—the Apostles’ Creed—prayer for the dead
—the Wednesday and the Friday Fast—unction of sick people—Canon of Serip-
ture—the forms of Sacraments—and the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary.
Now THAT THESE ARE NOT DIVINE TRADITIONS NOR APOSTOLICAL, APPEARS BY
THE DESTITUTION OF THEIR PROPER PROOF...... As for others, there are, in-
deed, a great many pretended to be traditions; but they are false articles, or
wicked practices, or uncertain sentences at the best. I reckon some of those
which the Roman Church obtrudes, such as are invocation of saints and angels,
adoration of them, and worshipping of images, the doctrine of purgatory, &c.”
Duct. Dub. or Rule of Conse. Bk. 2. ch. 3. Rule 14. Works, vol. xiii. 120, 121.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 467
‘them; at least as plain as was necessary to the end for which
“ they were written, which is the salvation of our souls.”! “Of
“ the sufficiency of Scripture, we may be convinced by the very
“nature of the thing. For the sermons of salvation being
“ preached to all, to the learned and unlearned, it must be a
“ common concern, and therefore fitted to all capacities; and
“ consequently made easy for easy learners. Now this design
“is plainly signified to us in Scripture by the abbreviations,
“the symbols and catalogues of ‘ credenda,’ which are short,
“ and plain, and easy; and to which salvation is promised.””?
“Tf in the plain words of Scripture be contained all that is
“ simply necessary to all, then it is clear, by Bellarmine’s con-
“ fession, that St. Austin affirmed, that the plain places of Scrip-
“ ture are suflicient to all laics, and all idiots, or private persons ;
“and then . . . it is very unnecessary to trouble them with
“ anything else, there being in the world no such treasure and
“ repository of faith and manners, and that so plain, that it was
“ intended for all men, and for all such men is sufficient.” *
“ To him that shall ask how we shall interpret and understand
“ the Scriptures, I shall give that answer which I have learned
“* from those Fathers whose testimony I have alleged to prove
“the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture. For if they were
“ never so full, yet if it be ‘ fons signatus, and the waters of sal-
“ vation do not issue forth to refresh the souls of the weary, full
“ they may be in themselves, but they are NOT SUFFICIENT FOR US,
“‘ NOR FOR THE WORK OF GoD IN THE SALVATION OF MAN. But
“ that it may appear that the Scriptures are indeed written by the
* hand of God, and therefore no way deficient from the end of
“ their design, God hath made them PLAIN AND EASY to all
“ people that are willing and obedient. . . . It is our own fault,
“ our prejudice, our foolish expectations, our carnal fancies, our
“‘ interests and partialities, make the Scriptures difficult. .. .
“ The Fathers say, that, in such things, viz. in which our salva-
“ tion is concerned, THE SCRIPTURES NEED NO INTERPRETER,
** BUT A MAN MAY FIND THEM OUT HIMSELF BY HIMSELF. .. .
“ There is no question but there are many places in the Divine
“ Scriptures mysterious, intricate, and secret ; but these are for
? Introduce. pp. 273, 4. 2 Bk. i. ᾧ 2. x. p. 389, 3 Tb. p. 411.
HH 2
468 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ the learned, not the ignorant ; for the curious and inquisitive,
“ not for the busied, and employed, and simple; they are not
“ the repositories of salvation; but instances of labour, and oc-
“ casions of humility, and arguments of forbearance and mutual
“ toleration, and an endearment of reverence and adoration.
“ But all that by which God brings us to himself, is plain and
ἀν Θ᾽ τὸς δὺς The antient Fathers took this way, and taught
“us to do so too; to expound difficult places by the plam....
“ But then, if there be any obscure places that cannot be so
“ enlightened, what is to be done with them? St. Austin says,
“ (Lib. de Unit. Ecc. c. 16,) that ‘in such places let every one
“‘ abound in his own sense, and expound as well as he can.” But
“* yet still he calls us to the rule of plain places . . . the plain
“ places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure,
“ and there is no other, viz. so apt and certain.”
And in reply to the argument made use of by Mr. Keble and
Mr. Newman, that where Scripture is alleged on both sides, or
its testimony explained away, there it cannot be clear, and cer-
tain, and sufficient to determine the point, the Bishop remarks,
-- Although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude the arguments
“ of Scripture, yet it follows not that Scripture is not clear and
* certain in the article; for it is an easy thing to say something
“ to everything ; but if that be enough against the argument, then
“no heretic can be convinced by Scripture ; and there is in Scrip-
“ture no pregnant testimony for any point of faith ; for in all
questions all heretics prattle something. And therefore it is not
a wise procedure to say, the adversaries do answer the testimonies
of Scripture, and by Scripture cannot be convinced, and therefore
choose some other way of probation. For, when that is done,
“ will they be convinced 3
These passages at least need no interpreter to show their com-
plete opposition to the system under review.
I pass on to the fifth position, on which a passage already
quoted has shown pretty clearly the Bishop’s views, in which he
says, that, ‘Concerning those books of Scripture of which it
“was long doubted in the Church whether they were part of
“the Apostolical Canon of Scripture, there ought to be no
n
{
ce
[7
ce
1 Tb, pp. 413—17. 2 Ib. § 3. p. 432.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 469
“ pretence that they were delivered for such by the Apostles, at
“east not by those Churches who doubted of them ;” and
hence that Tradition is not “entire and full in assigning the
Canon of Scripture.” And the use of Tradition in this matter
is thus cautiously and judiciously stated. “ This way of St.
“ Austin is of great and approved use, in the knowing what
“ books are canonical; and in these things it can be had, in
“ some more, in some less, in all more than can be suid ayainst it ;
“and there is nothing in succeeding times to give a check to
“ our assent in their degrees, because the longer the succession
“ runs, still the more the Church was established in it.” 4
I will add, however, the following extracts.
“Tt matters not by what means it be conveyed to us that the
“ Scriptures are the word of God. Oral tradition is an excellent
“ means ; but it is not that alone by which it is conveyed. For
“if, by oral tradition, he means the testimony of the Catholic
“ Church, it is the best external ministry of this, being a MATTER
“ or Fact, and of so great concernment. To which the testi-
“mony of our adversaries, Jews and heathens, adds no small
“ moment; and the tradition is also conveyed to us by very
“ many writings.” ..... “Yea, but if this proposition ‘ that
“ the Scriptures are the word of God,’ is conveyed to us by
“ oral tradition, this must needs be the best and only principle ;
“ for, ifit be trusted for the whole, why not for every particular ?
«, . . Besides the ridiculousness of the argument, there is a
“ particular reason why the argument cannot conclude; the
“ yeason in brief is this, because it is much easier for any man
“ to carry a letter, than to tell the particular errand ; it is easier
“ to tell one thing, than to tell ten thousand; to deliver one
“‘ thing out of our hand than a multitude out of our mouths ;
“ one matter of fact, than very many propositions ; as it is easier
“ to convey in writing all Tully’s works, than to say by heart,
“ with truth and exactness, any one of his orations. That the
“ Bible was written by inspired men, God setting his seal to
“ their doctrine, confirming, by miracles, what they first preached
«© and then wrote in a book—this is a matter of fact; and is no
“« otherwise to be proved, unless God should proceed extraordi-
1 See pp. 448, 449 above.
470 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ narily and by miracle, but by the testimony of wise men, who
“ saw it with their eyes, and heard it with their ears, and felt
“it with their hands. This was done at first, then only con-
““ sioned, then witnessed, and thence delivered.””*
“1 wonder why J.S. saith, that for want of Tradition we
“ cannot know either right Scripture, Fathers or Councils, J
“ do not think that by Tradition they do know all the books of
* Scriptures. Do they know by universal or apostolical tradi-
“ tion that the Epistle to the Hebrews is canonical Seripture ?
‘The Church of Rome had no tradition for it for above four
“ hundred years, and they received it at last from the tradition
“ of the Greek Church. .... And what universal tradition
“ can they pretend for those books which are rejected by some
“ Councils, as particularly that of Laodicea, which is m the
“Code of the Universal Church, and some of the Fathers,
“which yet they now receive? Certainly in that age which
“ rejected them there was no catholic tradition for them.” *
“ The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word
“ of God; and that they are so, is delivered to us by the
“ current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity ; and
“ they who thus are first led into this belief, find upon trial great
« after -proofs by arguments both external and internal, and such
“ as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth, that they are God’s
“word; an adhesion, I say, so perfect as excludes all manner
“ of practical doubting.” * “If you will not allow Scripture to
“ “quoad nos’ it is to be allowed to be primely credible, because
“ there is no creature besides it that is so. Indeed God was
* pleased to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his
* word, his immediate word, by miraculous consignations and
“ sufficient testimony and confession of enemies, and of all men
“ that were fit to bear witness that these books were written by
* such men who by miracle were proved to be ‘ Divini homines,’
“ men endued with God’s Spirit, and trusted with his message ;
“ and when it was thus far proved by God, it became the imme-
“ diate and sole ministry of entire salvation, and the whole reposi-
1 Introd. x. pp. 270, 1. 2 Ib. p. 287.
3 Bk. 1. § 2. x. 383, 4.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 4.7]
“ tory of the Divine will ; and when things were come thus far,
“if it be quired whether the Scriptures were a sufficient
‘institution to salvation, we need no other, we can have no
“ better testimony than itself concerning itself.” *
BisHor STILLINGFLEET.
We pass on to another learned prelate of the English Church,
whose name has been put forward by Mr. Keble as an autho-
rity in behalf of the views we have been considering. It were
useless to express the surprise, and more than surprise, which
such a use of his name is calculated to excite. I will proceed
at once to show Bp. Stillingfleet’s real sentiments on the
points in question, for which the extracts already given in
former parts of this work will have prepared the reader. I
quote principally from the very same work from which Mr.
Keble has given his extract.
On the first point, then, as to Church-Tradition being an un-
written word of God or divine informant, his whole course of
reasoning is directly and in terms opposed to it, and he tells us,
—“ We say that to us, who enjoy the Scriptures as delivered
“ down to us, the only certain and infallible conveyance of God’s
word to us is by them.”* Nay, he ridicules the idea of an un-
written word. After quoting a passage from Clemens Alex-
andrinus, intimating that nothing was to be received without
the written word, he asks in derision, “‘ Where was the unwritten
word then?” * Again, still more distinctly ;—“ The reason of
“his [i. e. Archbishop Laud’s] falling on the unwritten word, is
“not his fear of stooping to the Church to show it him, and
“ finally depend on her authority, but to show the unreasonable-
“ ness of your proceedings, who talk much of an unwritten word,
“ and are not able to prove any sucH THING. If ‘he will not
“ believe any unwritten word but what is shown him delivered by
“ the prophets and Apostles, I think he hath a great deal of reason
“ for such incredulity.” ὃ
1 Tb. pp. 387, 8.
2 A rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion, being a vindication
of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s [Laud’s] relation of a Conference, &c.,
from the pretended answer by T. C. Lond, 1665. fol.
3 p. 192. 4 p. 274. oe LOL:
472 DOETRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
The Bishop then proceeds to observe, that the statements of
the Romanist whom he was refuting, might be summed up in
the three following positions; “1. That there is an unwritten
“‘ word which must be believed by us, containing such doctrinal
“traditions as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical.
«2. That the ground of believing this unwritten word is from
“ the infallibility of the Church, which defines it to be so. 3.
“ That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such
“an unwritten word which is warranted by the Church.” The
only difference, then, between this Romanist and the Tractators
is, that for the infallibility of the Church they would substitute
the rule of Vincentius for discovering Catholic consent, which
with them is an unwritten word. Does the Bishop hold out any
support to such notions when refuting these positions? Far,
very far from it; and as for the rule of Vincentius, we shall see
hereafter how little weight he attached to it even for the disco-
very of Catholic consent. Proceeding to disprove the first
position, he says,—‘ These three things are necessary ingre-
“ς dients of this unwritten word. 1. That it must be originally
““ Apostolical ; and not only so, but it must be of Divine revela-
“« tion to the Apostles too. For otherwise it cannot be God’s
“‘ word at all, and therefore not his unwritten word. I quarrel
“ not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten word, τὸ You
“COULD PROVE IT; for it is evident to me that God’s word is
“no more so by being written or printed than if it were not so,
“ for the writing adds no authority to the word, but only isa
“ more certain means of conveying it to us. It is therefore
“ God’s word, as it proceeds from him, and that which is now
“ his written word was once his unwritten word; but, however,
“‘ whatever is God’s word must come from him, and since you
“ derive the source of the unwritten word from the Apostles,
‘€ whatever you call an unwritten word you must be sure to derive
“ its pedigree down from them, So that insisting on that point
“‘ of time when this was declared and owned for an unwritten
“word, you must be able to show that it came from the Apos-
“ 165, otherwise it cannot be owned as an Apostolical tradition.
“ 2. That what you call an unwritten word must be something
“ doctrinal, so you call them yourself doctrinal traditions, 1. 6.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 473
“such as contain in them somewhat dogmatical or necessary to be
“ believed by us ; and thence it was this controversie rose from
“the dispute concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a
“rule of faith, whether that contained att Gop’s worD, oR
“ALL MATTERS TO BE BELIEVED OR NO; or, whether there
“ were not some objects of faith which were never written, but
“ conveyed by tradition. 3. That what is thus doctrinal must
“be declared by the Church to be an Apostolical Tradition,
“ which you in terms assert. According, then, to these rules,
“‘ we come to examine the evidences by you produced for such
“an unwritten word.” And having examined the instances
produced of an unwritten word, among which are-the tradi-
tions as to Scripture being the word of God, infant baptism, and
the observance of the Lord’s day, he concludes, “ Among all
“ these instances, therefore, we are yet to seek for such a doc-
* trinal tradition as makes an unwritten word.’
Nay, he points out “ the great uncertainty of knowing Apo-
* stolical traditions, some things having been taken for such
** which we believe were not so, and others which could not be
“ known whether so or no, by the ages next succeeding the
“ Apostles.” ?
But above all, let me recommend to Mr. Keble’s and the
reader’s attention the passage already quoted from him, relating
to the authority of what is called Catholic consent, and the
boasted rule of Vincentius Lirinensis for ascertaining it. “ Wise
“ men who have throughly considered of Vincentius his way,
“ though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to
“ think it highly mpRoBaBLeE that there should be antiquity, uni-
“ versality, and consent against THE TRUE AND GENUINE SENSE
“ or ScrietuReE, yet when they consider this way of Vincentius
* with all those cautions restrictions and limitations set down by
“ him (1. 1. ο. 39), they are apt to think that HE HATH PUT MEN
“70 A WILD-GOOSE-CHASE TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ACCORDING
“79 HIS RULES, and that St. Augustine spake a great deal more
“ to the purpose when he spake concerning all the writers of the
“ Church, “ That although they had never so much learning and
“ sanctity, he did not think it true because they thought so, but
1 pp. 161, 162, 166. 2p. 249.
474. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
** because they persuaded him to believe it true EITHER FROM THE
“ AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE OR SOME PROBABLE REASON.” *
And, in another place, he shows by an instance out of the
Treatise of Vincentius, “ how little the judgment of Vincentius
« Lyrinensis is to be relied on as to traditions,” and “ how Uittle
“ certainty in his way of finding out traditions.” *
These passages, be it remembered, occur in the very same work
from which Mr, Keble has quoted extracts to show that Bishop
Stillingfleet held, that Catholic Consent, as ascertained by this
rule of Vincentius, is part of the Rule of faith! !
And so in another work, he speaks of “the notorious uncer-
“ tainty of mere tradition,” adding, “I say notorious, because
“ there never was any trial made of it but it failed, even when it
“ had the greatest advantages.” 3
As it respects the second, third, and fourth positions, we shall
find him equally in our favor,
Church-Tradition forms with him no part of the Rule of faith,
for, as he says elsewhere, “ all faith must suppose a Divine tes-
“ timony revealing those things to us as the ground on which
** we believe them.” * Throughout his whole Treatise the Serip-
tures are invariably and prominently put forward as the sole and
sufficient Rule of faith. He says,— Doth not he [1. 6. Irenzus]
“ tell us but three chapters before this, ‘ That we have received
* the method or doctrine of our salvation from those persons
‘* who preached it, which by God’s command they after delivered
* in the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar
* of our faith. Could anything be more fully spoken to cur
“ purpose than this is? Whereby he shows us, now the Serip-
“ tures are consigned unto us, what that is which our faith must
“ stand upon....that word of God which is delivered to us.
“ This therefore he elsewhere calls the unmovable canon of our
“ faith, as St. Augustine calls it divinam stateram, the divine
“ balance we must weigh the grounds of our belief in.” ὃ
1 p. 279. 2 p. 247.
3 See his “ Scripture and Tradition compared,” a Sermon on Col. ii. 6. Lond.
1688. 4to. p. 23, or in Bishop Gibson’s Preservative, vol. 1, tit. 4. p. 186. This
was one of his latest works on the subject.
= pe LOO; + ps 102;
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 475
“ΤΆ were easy to multiply the citations out of other books of
“ St. Austin, to show how much he attributed to Scripture as
* the only Rule of faith.’* “ The infallible rule of faith to us is
** the Scripture, viz. that which Limits and Bounps the material
“ objects of faith which we are bound to believe, and this doth
*< therefore discover to us what those things are which on the account
“ of the formal object [of faith| we are obliged to believe.”* Is
it possible to have the view for which we contend more clearly,
fully, and explicitly expressed than it is in this passage ?
Again ; having quoted a passage from Ireneus, he says,—"
“ Can anything be more plain than that Irenzeus makes it his
“ design to resolve faith into the writings of Christ and his
« Apostles, and saith that these writings were delivered as a
“ foundation of faith? .... But doth not Ireneus himself
* make use of the Church’s tradition as the great argument to
“ confute them by? I grant he doth so, and it is on that very
* account that he might confute them, and not lay down the
“ only sure foundation of Christian faith. For he gives that
“yeason of his doing so in the beginning of the very next
“ chapter. ‘For,’ saith he, ‘when we dispute against them out
“ of the Scripture, they are turned presently to an accusing of
“‘ the Scriptures as though they were not in all things right, and
“ wanted authority, and BECAUSE OF THEIR AMBIGUITY, AND
** FOR THAT TRUTH CANNOT BE FOUND OUT BY THEM WITHOUT
‘THE HELP OF TRADITION.’ I need not say, that Ireneus pro-
“ phesied of you in this saying of his, but it is as true of you as if
“he had. Your pretences being the very same against the Scrip-
* tures being the rule of faith with those of the Valentinians, only
“ that you deny not the truth of what is therein contained, for
“ otherwise the want of authority in themselves, THE AMBIGUITY
“OF THEM, THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWING THE SENSE OF
‘‘ THEM WITHOUT TRADITION, ARE THE VERY SAME ARGUMENTS
‘WHICH WITH THE GREATEST POMP AND OSTENTATION ARE
* PRODUCED BY YOU AGAINST THE SCRIPTURES BEING THE RULE
“ WHEREBY TO JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES.”
He then proceeds to say, that Irenzeus’s appeal to Tradition
is only as to this matter of fact, “ whether the Apostles left any
1 p. 196. 2 p. 208.
476 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
** oral traditions in the Churches which should be THE RULE TO
“INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES ΒΥ, or no;” and adds, “ THE
“WHOLE DESIGN OF [RENZUS IS TO PROVE THE CONTRARY
“Ὅν an appeal to all the Apostolical Churches, and particularly
“by appealing to the Roman Church. ... he then appealed to
“it for an evidence against such oral traditions which were
“ pretended to be left by the Apostles, as A RULE TO UNDER-
“‘ sTAND SCRIPTURE BY.” +
“ If Christ and his Apostles did speak according to truth,
“there is then need of no oral tradition for our understanding
“ Scripture.” *
Again, after referring to a passage of St. Augustine, he says,
“ After this he [i. 6. Augustine] gives directions for under-
* standing hard places, ‘ First by diligent reading and remem-
bering the plainest places ; for in them, saith he, “ are found all
“ those things which CONTAIN MATTERS OF FAITH AND PRAC-
“ pice.’ AN EXCELLENT CITATION FOR YOU FOR SEVERAL PUR-
“€ POSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WOULD PROVE THE OBSCURITY
“ or Scripture, the necessity of an infallible Judge, or your
“ doctrine of fundamentals, out of St. Augustine. And then
* bids them compare obscure and easie places together, to un-
“‘ derstand the proprieties of words, to get knowledge in the
“ tongues, to compare versions, antecedents, and consequents,
“ to be skilled in all human arts and sciences; these and several
* other instructions to the same purpose are the scope of his
“ following books.” 3
And elsewhere ;—‘‘ There are some who pretend that the
“« Apostles’ writings were merely accidental and occasional
“ things.... But I shall now prove that the writings of the
“« Apostles were intended by the Holy Ghost to be a standing
“ rule whereby the Church was to judge which was the true and
“ genuine doctrine of Christ.” And having given various
proofs of this, he adds, “ The design of what I have said is, that
“ although the Gospels and Epistles were written upon parti-
“ cular occasions, yet those occasions were so great and con-
“ siderable, and the assistance of the Holy Ghost did so direct
“ the hands and pens of the Evangelists and Apostles in writing
1 pp. 270, 271. 2 p. 272. 3 p. 194.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 477
“‘ them, that what they have therein delivered contains a com-
* nlete rule of the true and genuine faith as it was at first de-
“ livered to the Church.” !
And therefore, when speaking of the use to be made of
Catholic Consent in this matter, the bishop uses the following
guarded language ;—‘ And withal it seems reasonable, that
* because art and subtilty may be used by such who seek to
** pervert the catholic doctrine, and to wrest the plain places of
““ Scripture which deliver it, so far from their proper meaning,
“ that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear them-
‘selves of such mists as are cast before their eyes, the sense
* of the Catholic Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful
* way for us to embrace the true sense of Scripture, especially in
“ the great articles of the Christian faith. As, for instance, in
“ the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity, though the
“ subtilty of such modern heretics who oppose either of these
“‘ may so far prevail on persons either not of sufficient judgment
* or not sufficiently versed in the Scriptures as at present to
“make them acknowledge the places are not so clear as they
““ jmagined them to be, yet they being always otherwise inter-
“ preted by the Catholic Church, or the Christian societies
“ of all ages, lays this potent prejudice against all such attempts,
“as not to believe such interpretations true till they give a just
“ account why, if the belief of these doctrines were not necessary,
“ the Christians of all ages from the Apostles’ times did so unani-
“ mously agree in them, that when any began first to oppose them,
“ they were declared and condemned for heretics for their pains.
* So that the Church of England doth very piously declare her
“ consent with the antient Catholic Church in not admitting any-
“ thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture which is con-
“ trary to the consent of the Catholic Church in the four first
“ages. Not as though the sense of the Catholic Church were
* pretended to be any infallible rule of interpreting Scripture in all
“ things which concern the rule of faith, but that it is a sufficient
“ prescription against anything which can be alledged out of
“ Scripture, that if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholic
1 Scripture and tradition compared. Lond. 1688, 4to. pp. 15—22, or in Bishop
Gibson’s Preserv. vol. i. tit. 4. pp. 185, 6.
478 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
* Church from the beginning, it ought not to be looked on as
“ the true meaning of the Scripture. All this security is built
“upon this strong presumption, that nothing contrary to the
“ necessary articles of faith should be held by the Catholic
“ Church, whose very being depends upon the belief of those
“‘ things which are necessary to salvation. As long, therefore,
“as the Church might appear to be truly catholic by those
** correspondencies which were maintained between the several
“ parts of it, that what was refused by one was so by all, so
“ long this unanimous and uncontradicted sense of the Catholic
“ Church ought to have a great sway upon the minds of such
“‘ who yet profess themselves members of the Catholic Church.
“ From whence it follows, that such doctrines may well be judged
“ destructive to the rule of faith, which were so unanimously
“ condemned by the Catholic Church within that time.” (pp.
58, 59.)
Now here it will be observed, that though the bishop uses
language which, if it stood alone, might seem to imply his belief
that we have the unanimous consent of Antiquity in favor of
the orthodox faith, and that the Catholic Church was a more
pure and exclusive body than we have found it to be, still, not-
withstanding this, he does not allow such consent the authority
claimed for it by the Tractators. And the reason is plain from
his own statements elsewhere, namely, that he did not speak of
this “‘ unanimous consent,” &c. in the strict sense of the terms,
but only as swch an approximation to it as afforded a probable
and confirmatory argument for the truth. That this is the case
is undeniable, from the terms in which he has spoken in the same
work of the rule of Vincentius, as may be seen in the extracts
given above.
Thus also, for instance, he says in a passage which in more
than one way shows his adherence to our views, “ Next to
“ Seripture and reason, I attribute so much to the sense of the
“ Christian Church in the ages next succeeding the Apostles,
“ that it is no mean CONFIRMATION to me of the truth of the
“ PROTESTANT way of resolving faith and of the falsity of
“ yours, that I see the one so exactly concurring and the other
“so apparently contrary to the unanimous consent of Antiquity.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 479
“ For though you love to make a great noise with Antiquity
“ among persons meanly conversant in it, [this is spoken, be it
“‘ remembered, with respect to the Romish doctrine of tradition, |
“yet those who do seriously and impartially inquire into the
“ sense of the Primitive Church, and not guess at it by the shreds of
“ citations to your hands in your own writers—which is generally
“ your way—will scarce in anything more palpably discern your
“ juggling and impostures than in your pretence to Antiquity.”
And so in a subsequent work he says, “‘ Suppose the question be
“‘ not concerning the express articles of this rule of faith, but
* concerning the sense and meaning ofthem, how then are we to find
“ out the consent of Antiquity ? For they might all agree in the
“* words, and yet have a different notion of the things. As Peta-
“ vius at large proves, &c. .... Here now arises the greatest
“ difficulty to me in this point of Tradition; the usefulness of
“it, I am told, is for explaining the sense of Scripture ; but
“there begins a controversy in the Church about the explica-
* tion of the doctrine of the Trinity. J desire to know whether
“ Vincentivs his rules will help us here? It is pleaded by
“ St. Hierome (Apol. c. Ruffin. lib. 11.) and others, ‘ That the
“writers of the Church might err in this matter, or speak un-
“warily in it, before the matter came to be thoroughly dis-
“cussed.” If so, how comes the testimony of erroneous or
“unwary writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of
“ Scripture? And in most of the controversies of the Church,
this way hath been used to take off the testimony of persons
“ who writ before the controversy began, and spake differently
“ of the matter in debate. I do not deny the truth of the alle-
“ gation in behalf of those persons, but to my understanding it
“ plainly shows the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain
“ sense of Scripture, when that Tradition is to be taken from the
“ writers of the foregoing ages.’”*
Now surely it is but little to require from those who are
acting like the Tractators, that before they put forward the
names of our great divines as supporters of their views, they
should make themselves somewhat acquainted with their works
1 pp. 261, 2.
2 Answ. to several Treat. pp. 245, 6. 2d. edit. 1674. See vol. i. pp. 259, 260.
4.80 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
as a whole, and compare their statements, (by which alone we
can ascertain the real views of any man on such points as those
now in dispute), and not, by a partial selection of one or two
isolated passages, lead the reader altogether astray as to the
real nature of their sentiments. And if Mr. Keble is inclined to
carry the investigation of Bishop Stillingfleet’s works further, I
am quite prepared to follow him, and to show that when his
statements are balanced and compared with each other, (as they
ought to be,) the representation of his sentiments given above
will be found to be a fair one.
To the extracts just given the reader will remember to add
the decisive passages from another work of the bishop’s, occurring
in the second volume of this work.! And before I pass on, I would
just observe, that in his list of “ Protestant principles ” at the
end of his work on the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, he
maintains in the thirteenth, that the Scriptures “ may be under-
“stood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the
“ meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their
“ salvation ;” and in the fifteenth, that they “contain in them
“ the whole will of God so plainly revealed, that no sober inquirer
“ can miss of what is necessary for salvation.”
Further, as it respects more particularly the notion of there
being some religious truths not contained in Scripture (of which
it will be recollected that Mr. Newman has particularized the
observance of the Christian Sabbath and the perpetual virginity
of the Mother of our Lord, and Mr. Keble, “the paramount
“ authority of the successors of the Apostles in Church govern-
“ ment,” “ infant baptism,”’ &c., and which they press upon us
as doctrines that formed part of the depositum left by the oral
tradition of the Apostles with the Church,) thus speaks Bishop
Stillingfleet ;—“ Though nothing is to be admitted for matter
“ of faith which wants those three marks [1. 6. antiquity, uni-
“ versality, and consent], yet some things may have all three of
“ them, and yet be no matters of faith at all..... Such as
Ὁ See extracts from his “ Discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the
certainty of faith, in answer to J. S. his Catholic Letters” (Lond. 1688. 4to.) in
vol. ii. pp. 145—150 and 165, 166. This, with his “ Council of Trent examined,”
were, I think, the /as¢ works he published on the subject.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 481
* those things are which you insist on as deposita doymata...
** which are no matters of faith at all, but either ritual traditions
* or matters of order, such as the form and matter of Sacra-
“ments, the hierarchy of the Church, Pedobaptism, not rebap-
“ tizing heretics, the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary.’’}
Again, in p. 105, he proceeds to vindicate the assertion of
Archbishop Laud, “That it may be concluded directly out of
Scripture that infants ought to be baptized ;” and having proved
the truth of this position, he adds, “ Had it been contrary to
“ Christ’s institution, we should not have had such evidence of
** its early practice in the Church as we have. And here I ac-
“ knowledge the use of Apostolical tradition to manifest this to
“us... . we grant that the practice of the Church from
““ Apostolical times is a great confirmation that it was never
Christ’s intention to have infants excluded from baptism.”*
I quote this to show in what way Bishop Stillingfleet made use
of Tradition in such a case, and what purpose he considered it
to answer. To such a use of it of course no reasonable man can
object. Its value thus far will be acknowledged by all.
Again, he says, ‘‘ Your fourth instance is concerning the re-
“ baptization of heretics ; concerning which two things are to
“be considered, the custom itself, and the right and law on
“ which that custom was grounded. In the places by you cited
“ out of St. Austin, it is plain he speaks of the custom and
“ practice of the Church... .. But what is this to doctrinal
“traditions concerning matters of faith? That there were
“* many ecclesiastical customs observed in the Church as Aposto-
“ lical traditions, I deny not, but that is not our present ques-
“tion. If you therefore inquire into that which is only doctrinal
“ in this case, concerning the right and lawfulness of practice in
“ this case, that he [i. 6. Augustine] fixeth wholly upon the
** Scriptures. The practice of the Church in admitting heretics
“ without baptizing them again, might be known by tradition,
“ but whether the Church did well or ill in it must be, by St.
““ Austin’s own confession, determined out of Scripture.’* The
doctrine, therefore, connected with an ecclesiastical custom, he
considered to rest wholly upon the authority of Scripture.
1 Rational Account, &e. p. 94. 2 p. 108. 3 p. 166.
VOL, IIT. | a
482 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“Tf you prove not some tradition thus universally owned
*‘ and received, which we have no record of, or ground for the
*¢ observation of, from Scripture, you speak nothing at all to
“ the purpose ; but two of those you instance in, observation of
* the Lord’s Day and Pedobaptism, we have as much as is requi-
* site for the Church's practice from Scripture itself. For the
“ other, Of the use of altars, [adds the Bishop, in a tone of just
* sarcasm, which those who have thus appealed to his authority,
“ will do well to ponder, | it were a work becoming you to de-
“ duce the history of them from the Apostolicai times, beginning
“ at the ὕπερῷον, or upper room, where the Apostles met, after
“ Christ’s ascension ; and so tracing them through all the pri-
“vate houses and synagogues in which the Christians in the
“« Apostles’ times had their solemn assemblies for divine worship,
*‘ thence bringimg down the history of them carefully through
* all the persecutions, and producing evidences to that purpose
“ out of Tertullian, Origen, Minutius Felix, and Arnobius, only
“ blotting out Non, where they speak of ALTARS and TEMPLES among
“ CuristTrans; and telling us that some Protestants had cor-
“ yupted their books; that where they utterly disown them,
“ they did highly magnifie them ; that where they seemed to
* speak most against them, it was not to let the heathens know
“ that they had them.... You do well to wrap up all other
* such traditions as might vye with the Scriptures for integrity,
“in a prudent et cetera. For you cannot but know that this game
“ of tradition 1s quite spoiled, if we offer to come to particulars.
“ But it is a fine thing in general to talk of the impossibility of
“ corrupting such a tradition, as had its rise from the practice of
* the Apostles, and was by them delivered to succeeding ages ; and
“ so was universally practised by all Christians, as derived from
“ the Apostles,’? 1
As it respects points of practice, (already noticed indirectly
in some of the preceding extracts,) we need nothing more than
the following remark, occurring in the same work from which
we have just been quoting, to show his mind in the matter.
“ The practice of the Church,” he says, “in admitting heretics
“ without baptizing them again, might be known by tradition ;
1 p. 245.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 483
“ but whether the Church did well or ill in it, [and therefore
‘‘ whether it was an Apostolical tradition or not], must be by
“ St. Austin’s own confession determined out of Scripture... .
“ So that we see ὃ. Augustine did not himself think it a sufficient
“ proof of Apostolical tradition, that it was a custom of the Church,
“ unless he did likewise produce certain evidence out of Scripture
“ for the confirmation of it.” + And as it respects in particular the
observation of the Lord’s Day, he says, “ Though the tradition
“ of the Church be a great confirmation of the Apostolical prac-
* tice in observation of the Lord’s Day, yet that very practice,
“ and the ground of it, are sufficiently deduced from Scripture.’”
Again, speaking of the difference in the early Church as to
the time of observing Easter, he says,—“If some of them did
* falsify tradition so svon, we see what little certainty there is
“in the deriving a tradition from the Apostles ; if neither falsi-
“ fied, then it should seem there was no universal practice of the
“ Apostles concerning it ; but they looked on it as a matter of
“ indifferency ; and some might practise one way, and some
“another. If so, then we are yet further to seek for an uni-
“versal tradition of the Apostles binding succeeding ages.
“ For can you possibly think the Apostles did intend to bind
“ unalterably succeeding ages in such things which they used a
“ liberty in themselves ? If, then, it be granted, that, in matters
“ of an indifferent nature, the Apostles might practise severally,
“as they saw occasion, how, then, can we be certain of the Apostles’
“ unwersal practice in matters of an indifferent nature? If we
“ cannot be so, we can have no evidence of an universal tradition of
“ the Apostles, but in some things which they judged necessary.
“ But whence shall we have this unquestionable evidence, first,
“ that they did such things; and secondly, that they did them
“ with an apprehension of the necessity of them, and with an
“ intention to oblige posterity by their actions? By what rule
“ or measure must we judge of this necessity? By their uni-
“ versal practice ? But that brings us into a plain circle; for we
“‘ must judge of the necessity of it by their universal practice ;
“and we must prove that universal practice by the necessity
“of the thing. For if the thing were not judged necessary,
1 Rational Account, &c. Pt. 1. c. 6. p. 166. 3. 18;
τος a
484. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“the Apostles might differ in their practice from one another.
“ Whence, then, shall we prove any practice necessary, unless
* built on some unalterable ground of reason ; and then it is
“not formally an Apostolical tradition, but the use of that
“ common reason and prudence in matters of a religious nature ;
“or else by some positive law and institution of theirs; and
* this, supposing it unwritten, must be evidenced from some-
“ thing distinct from their practice, or else you must assert that
“ whatever the Apostles did, they made an unalterable law for ;
“ or lastly, you must quit all unwritten traditions as universal, and
“ must first infer the necessity, and then the universaiity of their
“ practice, from some record extant in Scripture ; and then you
“can be no further certain of any universal practice of the
“ Apostles, than you are of the Scriptures; by which it will
“ certainly appear, that the Scripture is far more evident and
“ credible, than any universal unwritten tradition.”1 Mr. Keble
will, I hope, consider these remarks in connexion with his obser-
vations on the consecration of the Eucharist.’
Further, as to the fifth position maintained by our opponents,
viz. that it is on the authority of Church-tradition that we know
the inspiration and canon of Scripture, and the genuineness of
what we receive as such.
“There are,” says the Bishop, “in the question of resolution
“of faith, these three questions to be resolved: 1. Why I
believe those things to be true, which are contained in the
“ Book called the Scripture. 2. Why I believe the doctrine
*“ contained in that book to be divine. 38. Why I believe the
“ books themselves to be of divine revelation.... 1. If I be
“ asked on what grounds I believe the things to be true which
“are contained in Scripture, my answer must be, From the
“ greatest evidence of truth which things of that nature are
“capable of. If, therefore, the persons who are supposed to
“ have writ these things, were such who were fully acquainted
“ with what they writ of, if they were such persons who cannot
“be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings,
“and if I be certain that these which go under the name of
“ their writings are undoubtedly theirs, I must have sufficient
1 Th. Pt. 1. ¢. 8. p. 246. 2 See vol. ii. p. 225 above.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 485
** grounds to believe the truth of them. Now that the writers
“ of these things cannot be suspected of ignorance, appears by
the time and age they writ in, when the story of these things
** was new; and such multitudes were willing enough to have
“ contradicted it, if anything had been amiss ; besides, some of
“ the writers had been intimately conversant with the person
“and actions of him whom they writ most of. That they
* could have no intent to deceive, appears from the simplicity
“and candour, both of their actions and writings, from their
“contempt of the world, and exposing themselves to the
* greatest hazards to bear witness to them. That these are the
“ very same writings, appears by all the evidence that can be
“ desired. For we have as great, if not much greater, reason
“to believe them to be the authors of the books under their
“‘ names, than any other writers of any books whatsoever ; both
“ because the matters are of greater moment, and therefore men
* might be supposed more inquisitive about them, and that
“ they have been unanimously received for theirs, from the very
“ time of their being first written, except some very few, which,
* upon strict examination, were admitted too; and we find these
* very books cited by the learned Christians under these names
“ in that time, when it had been no difficulty to have found out
“ several of the original copies themselves. When, therefore,
‘ they were universally received by Christians, never doubted of
“by Jews or heathen philosophers, we have as great evidence
“ for this first act of faith, as it is capable of. And he is un-
“‘ reasonable who desires more.
«2. If I be asked, why I believe the doctrine contained in
“these books to be divine, I must give in two things for
* answer. 1. That in the age when the doctrine was delivered,
“ there was sufficient reason to believe it divine. 2. That if
“‘ there was sufficient reason then, we have sufficient reason now.
“41, That in the age when the doctrine was delivered, there
*‘ was sufficient reason to believe it divine. Supposing, then,
* that we already believe, upon the former answer, that all the
“ matters of fact be true, I answer, that if Christ did such
“ unparalleled miracles, and rose from the dead, they who heard
“ his doctrine had reason to believe it to be of God; and this,
486 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ T suppose, the greatest infidel would not deny, if himself had
“ been one of the witnesses of his actions and resurrection.
“2, That if they had reason then, we have so now; because
“ Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to
* what Christ did and spake; 1. 6. That Tradition, [consisting
“ chiefly (see p. 210,) of the tradition of the Apostles in Scrip-
“ ture| is a kind of derivative and perpetuated sensation to us ;
“ it being of the same use to us now, which our eyes and ears
“had been, if we had been actually present when Christ deli-
“ vered his doctrine, and wrought his miracles.... The use of
“ the senses to those who saw the miracles, and heard the doc-
“ trine of Christ, was not to give any credibility to either of
“ them, but only to be the means of conveying to them those
“ things which might induce them to believe; the same doth
« Tradition now to us; it doth not, in itself, make the doctrine
“‘ more credible, but supplies the use of our senses in a certain
“‘ conveyance of those things to us, which were the motives to
“believe then. For the motives to faith, both to them and us,
‘are the same ; only the manner of conveyance is different. . . .
“ And this is the way of resolution of faith, which the Scripture
“ itself directs us to. ‘ How shall we escape, if we neglect so
“ oveat salvation? which at the first began to be spoken by the
“ Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him ;
“ God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders,
“ and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, accord-
“ing to his own will.’ (Heb. 11. 3, 4.) Where we plainly see
** the resolution of faith as to the divinity of the doctrine, was
“into the miracles wrought for the confirmation of it, (which
‘ was the proper witness or testimony of the Holy Ghost ;) but
“ the means of conveyance was by the tradition of those who were
“eye and ear witnesses of what Christ said or did. As, there-
‘fore, it was not supposed necessary for them who saw the
“miracles of Christ, either to have some inward testimony of
* the Spirit, or some external infallible testimony of the Church,
“ to assure them that these miracles were really done by Christ,
“ but God left them to the judgment of sense, so, proportion-
“ably, neither of those two is now necessary for the resolution
“of our faith; but God, instead of the judgment of sense,
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 487
“ leaves us to the evidence of Tradition [i. 6. that tradition which
“ consists principally of the testimony which ‘the eye and ear
“ witnesses of what Christ said and did,’ have left us in the Scrip-
“tures. See p. 210, &c.]
“8. On what account do I believe these particular books of
“ Scripture to be God’s word. Which may admit of a double
“sense: 1. On what account I do believe the doctrine contained
“in these books to be God’s word. 2. On what account I do
“ believe the books containing this doctrine to be God’s word.
“« As to the first, 1 have answered already, viz. upon the same
“ rational evidence which God gave, that the testimony of those
“‘ who delivered was a divine and infallible testimony. To the
“ second, I answer in these two propositions.
«1, That the last resolution of faith is not into the infalli-
“ bility of the instrument of conveyance, but into the infallibility
“ of that doctrine which is thereby conveyed to us. .... Hence
“‘ we may discern the difference between the formal object, and
“ the rule of faith; the formal object is that evidence which is
* given of the infallibility of the testimony of those who de-
“ livered the doctrine, [which, as we have seen, he considered
“ to be their miracles] ; the infallible rule of faith to us is the
* Scripture, viz. that which limits and bounds the material
“ objects of faith, which we are bound to believe; and this
** doth, therefore, discover to us what those things are, which,
“on the account of the formal object, we are obliged to
“ believe.
“Ὡς, Those who believe the doctrine of Scripture to be divine,
“have no reason to question the infallible conveyance of that
“ doctrine to us in those books we call the Scripture. There-
“ fore, whatever things we are to believe in order to salvation,
“ we have as great evidence as we can desire that they are
“ infallibly conveyed to us. 1. Ifthe doctrine of Christ be true
““ and divine, then all the promises he made were accomplished.
“« Now that was one of the greatest, that his Spirit should lead
“his Apostles into all truth. (John xvi. 13.) Can we, then,
“ yeasonably think, that if the Apostles had such an infallible
“ assistance of the Spirit of God with them in what they spake
“in a transitory way to them who heard them, that they should
“ want it in the delivering those records to the Church, which
488 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ were to be the standing monuments of this doctrine to all ages
“ and generations ?.... So that it will appear an absurd
“ thing to assert that the doctrine of Christ is divine, and to
“ question whether we have the infallible records of it... . .
«2. Because these books were owned for divine, by those
“ persons and ages who were most competent judges whether
“they were so or no. For the age of the Apostles was suffi-
** ciently able to judge whether those things which are said to be
« spoken by Christ, or written by the Apostles, were really so or
“no. And we can have no reason at all to question, but what
“ was delivered by them was infallibly true. Now, from that first
“‘ age we derive our knowledge concerning the authority of these
“ books, which, being conveyed to us in the most unquestionable
“ and universal tradition, we can have no reason in the world
“to doubt; and therefore the greatest reason firmly to assent,
*‘ that the books we call the Scripture are the infallible records
“ of the word of God.” +
Where we see that the utmost which is allowed to Church-
tradition in this matter is, to bear witness to the matter of fact
that the books of Scripture were written by those whose names
they bear, and were from the first acknowledged by Christians
as inspired; and that this testimony stands not alone in proof
of it.
And this is still further proved by the supposed dialogue he
introduces between himself and a heathen, in which he says,—
“‘ Will you believe such things wherein persons of several ages,
“ professions, nations, religions, interests, are all agreed that they
“ were so? A, Yes, IF 11 BE ONLY TO BELIEVE A MATTER OF
* PACT ON THEIR TESTIMONY ; J can see no ground to question it.
“ [to which the reply is] THar 1s atu I pesrRre oF you, and
“ therefore you must believe that there was in the world such a
*‘ person as Jesus Christ, who died and rose again, and while he
* lived wrought great miracles to confirm his doctrine with ;
* and that he sent out Apostles to preach this doctrine in the
* world, who likewise did work many miracles, and that some
“of these persons, the better to preserve and convey this
“ doctrine, did write the substance of al] that Christ either did
1 pp. 204, 5, 8, 9.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 489
“ or spake, and withal penned several Epistles to those Churches
“ which were planted by them.” Then having proceeded to
prove the divinity of the doctrine by the miracles of Christ and
the success of his doctrine, he adds, on the point of the divine
inspiration of the Scripture, “If you believe the doctrine to be
“ true and divine, you cannot reasonably question the infallibi-
“lity of the Scriptures. For in that you read that not only
« Christ did miracles, but his Apostles too, and therefore their
“ testimony, whether writing or speaking, was equally infallible ;
* all that you want evidence for is, that such persons writ these
“ books, and that, being a matter of fact, was sufficiently proved
“ and acknowledged before,” namely in that “ persons of several
“ ages, professions, nations, religions, interests, are all agreed”
in it! That is, Church-tradition supplies us only with evidence
for the matters of fact connected with this point, and with but
part of the evidence we have for them.
And so with respect to the genuineness of what we receive as
Scripture, though he grants and asserts, that “the universal
consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages” would
be a sufficient ground for our being certain, “ that the Scripture
we have was the same delivered by the Apostles,” * yet he says
that this is not the only testimony we have for it, but “ we do
“ justly appeal to the antient copies and MSS., which confirm
“ the incorruption of ours.” ὃ
Again, combating the idea that we receive the Scriptures “ on
the sole authority of Church-tradition,” he says, “ Is there any
“ yepugnancy in the thing, that Scripture should be received
“ first upon the account of tradition, and yet afterwards men
“ resolve their faith into the Scripture itself? May not a man
“ very probably believe that a diamond is sent him from a friend
“ upon the testimony of the messenger who brings it, and yet be
« firmly persuaded of it by discerning the sparklings of it ?” ἢ
“ General tradition at first makes way for the first admission
“ of Scripture, as the general repute of an Embassadour’s coming
* doth for his access to the Prince; the particular tradition of
* the Church is like the Embassadour’s affirming to the Prince
* that he hath letters of credence with him; but then when he
1 p.177. 2 pp. 211, 12. 3 p, 210. 4 p, 222,
490 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ inquires into the certainty of those letters, those motives of
“ credibility (not which relate to the person of the Embassa-
“ dour but) which evidently prove the sealing of those letters
“ (as the constant testimony of such who were present at it, the
“ Secretaries and Embassadours venturing their lives upon it)
“ must confirm him in that; and lastly, his own reading the
“ credentials give [gives] him the highest confirmation ; 1. 6. the
“ testimony of those who saw the miracles of Christ and his
« Apostles, and confirmed the truth of their testimony by their
“‘ dying for it, are [is] the highest inducement to our believing
“ that the Scriptures were sealed by God himself in the miracles
“ wrought, and written by his own hand, his Spirit infallibly
“ assisting the Apostle ; but still, after all this, when in these
“very Scriptures we read such things as we cannot reasonably
“ suppose could come from any but God himself, this doth in the
“ highest degree settle and confirm our faith.” Ὁ And he applauds
Justin Martyr for that “in all his discourses, where he had the
** most occasion administered to him to discover the most certain
“ erounds of Christian faith, he resolves all into the rational evi-
“ dence of the truth, excellency, and divinity of the doctrine
“ which was contained in the Scriptures.” ”
I will add but one more quotation. It is pleaded by the
Tractators, as by the Romanists, that as Scripture is known
(according to them) by Tradition, so the Oral Tradition of the
Apostles may be, as to the substance of it, known in the same
way. The following extract will show Bishop Stillingfleet’s
opinion of such a notion. “ Your next inquiry is to this sense,
“ whether Apostolical Tradition be not as credible as the Serip-
“tures. I answer freely—suUPPosING IT EQUALLY EVIDENT—
“* what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or
“ writing hath equal credibility. You attempt to prove, ‘ That
“ there is equal evidence, because the Scripture is only known
“ by the tradition of the Church to be the same that was recom-
“ mended by the Apostolical Church, which you have likewise
“ for Apostolical Tradition.’ But, 1. Do you mean the same
« Apostolical Tradition here or no, which the Archbishop [Laud]
“ speaks of, i. 6. that act of the Apostles whereby they delivered
1 p. 260. 2 p. 267.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 49]
“ the doctrine of Christ upon their testimony to the world? If
“ you mean this tradition, for my part I do not understand it as
“ anything really distinct from the. tradition of the Scripture itself.
‘For although I grant, that the Apostles did deliver that doc-
“ trine by word as well as writing, yet if that tradition by word
“ had been judged sufficient, I much question whether we had
“ever had any written records at all. But because of the
“ speedy decay of an oral tradition, if there had been no stand-
* ing records, it pleased God in his infinite wisdom and goodness
“ to stir up some fit persons to digest those things summarily
“into writing, which otherwise would have been exposed to
* several corruptions in a short time. For we see presently in
“ the Church, notwithstanding this, how suddenly the Gnostics,
“ Valentinians, Manichees, and others, did pretend some secret
“ tradition of Christ or his Apostles distinct from their writings.
“ When, therefore, you can produce as certain evidence for any
“ Apostolical tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that
“ the books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the
“« Church, you may then be hearkened to, but not before.” 1
The next witness to whom I would refer is
BisHor Patrick,
from whose “ Discourse about Tradition’? Mr. Keble has given
an extract. From this passage the system under review can
clearly look for no support in more than one point, and that is
as to the degree of authority to be given to what is called Catholic
Consent in the interpretation of Scripture. On this point Bishop
Patrick uses expressions in this extract which leave it doubtful
what degree of authority he attributed to it. But what is
wanted from Mr. Keble’s witnesses is not a testimony of this
doubtful nature, but one which distinctly declares, in accordance
with his system, that such Consent is part of the Rule of faith.
We do not deny, but on the contrary affirm, that our Church
receives the faith which has the witness of what is popularly
called Catholic Consent, but we do deny that she considers herself
bound by the authority of that Consent, i. e. of a certain number
of Fathers and Councils, or that it forms any part of her Rule of
1 p. 210.
492 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
faith. Where does Bishop Patrick assert this? Nowhere. On
the contrary, when we come to read his treatise as a whole, we
find that in the commencement of it he distinctly states, that
Church-tradition has but human authority, and begins by show-
ing, that such texts as 2 Thess. 1. 15, (“ hold the traditions
which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle”),
upon which Mr. Keble appears to ground his reverence for tra-
ditions,| are nothing to the purpose as an argument for our
receiving traditions.
“ Tn this,” he says, “ we all agree, that the whole Gospel or
“ doctrine of Christ which is now upon record in those books we
“ call the Scriptures, was once unwritten, when it was first
“ preached by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles, which must
“ be noted to remove that small objection with which they of
“ the Roman Church are wont to trouble some people’s minds,
“merely from the name of traditions, which St. Paul in his
« Kpistles requires those to whom he writes carefully to observe ;
“ particularly in that famous place 2 Thess. ii. 15. ‘Therefore,
‘brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
“ been taught, whether by word or our Epistle.’ Behold, say
“ they, here are things not written, but delivered by word of
“mouth, which the Thessalonians are commanded to hold.
“ Very true, should the people of our Church say to those that
“insist upon this, but behold also, we beseech you, what the
“ traditions are of which the Apostle here writes, and mark also
“ when it was that they were partly unwritten. For the first of
“ these, it is manifest that he means by traditions, the doctrines
“ which we now read in the Holy Scriptures. For the very first
*‘ word therefore is an indication that this verse is an inference
“‘ from what he had said in the foregoing. Now the things he
“ before treated of are the grand doctrines of the Gospel, or the
“ way of salvation revealed unto us by Christ Jesus from God
“the Father, who ‘hath from the beginning,’ saith he, vv. 13,
“14, ‘chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit
“ and belief of the truth, whereunto he hath called you,’ &e.
«« This is the sum of the gospel; and whatsoever he had delivered
“unto them about these matters of their sanctification, or of
1 KEBLE’s Serm. p. 22, and text.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 493
“ their faith, or of their salvation, by obtaining the glory of our
* Lord Jesus Christ, to which they were chosen and called
““ through their sanctification and faith, this he exhorts them to
“ hold fast, whether it was contained in this Epistle or in his
“ former preaching, for he had not occasion now to write all that
“he had formerly delivered by word of mouth. Which after-
“ward was put in writing; for mark, (which is the second
“ thing,) the time when some things remained unwritten, which
“ was when this Epistle was sent to the Thessalonians. Then some
“things concerning their salvation were not contained in this
“ letter, but as yet delivered only by word of mouth unto this
“ Church. I say, to this Church ; for it doth not follow, that all
* churches whatsoever were, at the time of the writing of this
“ Epistle, without the doctrine of the gospel completely written,
““ because among the Thessalonians some traditions or doctrines
“‘ were as yet unwritten. Which can im reason be extended no
* further than to themselves, and to this Epistle, which did not
* contain all the evangelical doctrine, though other writings,
“ which it is possible were then extant in some other Churches,
“did. And I say, as yet unwritten in that Church, because the
“ Thessalonians no doubt had afterward more communicated to
“ them in writing, besides this Epistle or the former either, viz.
* all the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and other Apo-
* stolical Epistles, which we now enjoy. Which writings, we
** may be confident, contain the traditions which the Apostle
* had delivered to the Thessalonians by word, concerning the
“¢ incarnation, birth, life, miracles, death, resurrection and ascen-
“ sion of our blessed Saviour, and concerning the coming of the
* Holy Ghost, and the mission of the Apostles, and all the rest
“* which is there recorded for our everlasting instruction. And,
therefore, it is in vain to argue from this place that there are
** still at this day some unwritten traditions which we are to
“ follow, unless the. Apostle had said, ‘ hold the traditions which
“ ye have been taught by word which shall never be written.’
« _... And it is to no more purpose to show us the word “ tra-
“‘ dition’ in other places of St. Paul’s writings. ...... It
“ would be.too long to explain all the rest of the places of
“ Holy Scripture, which they are wont to allege, [among which
494. DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“is Mr. Keble’s text, 2 Tim. i. 14.] though the word tradition
“ be not mentioned in them, to give a colour to their present
ἐς pretences.” !
By these observations about one-half of Mr. Keble’s sermon
is answered, for it is an argument for the value of Tradition
founded upon these texts.
But let us proceed to an examination of the bishop’s views
on the particular points which characterize the system under
review.
First, As to Church-Tradition bemg a “ divine informant,”
an “unwritten word of God.”
“Tf” he says, “part of God’s word had been written and
“ part unwritten, we cannot but believe there would have been
“€ some care taken in the written word, not only to let us know
“ 50 much, but also inform us whither we should resort to find
“it, and how we should know it, if it be absolutely necessary
* for us to be acquainted with it. But there is no such notice
“‘ nor any such directions left us, nor can any man give us any
“ certain rule to follow in this matter, but only this, 70 examine
« ql traditions by the Scripture as the supreme rule of faith, and
< to admit only such as are conformable thereunto...... It is
“ true, the Fathers sometimes urge tradition as a proof of what
“they say. But we must know that the Scriptures were not
* presently communicated among some barbarous nations, and
“ there were some heretics also who either denied the Scriptures,
“ or some part of them. And in these cases it was necessary
“to appeal to the tradition that was in the Church, and to
** convince them by the doctrine taught everywhere by all the
“bishops. But that (mark this, 1 pray you,) of which they
* convinced them by this argument, was nothing but what is
“ taught in the Scripture. With which we cannot suffer any-
“ thing to be equalled in authority, unless we could see it con-
“ firmed by the same or equal testimony. This 15 the great
“ reason of all, why we cannot admit any unwritten traditions to
“ be a part of THE WORD oF Gop which we are BOUND TO BE-
“ TIEVE, because we cannot find any truths so delivered to us as
1 Disc. about Trad. Pt. 1. ὃ 1. See also his Answer to Touchstone of Reformed
Gospel, pp. 28, 9.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 495
“ those in the holy Scriptures.” + Which is directly contrary to
what Mr. Keble maintains.
And so in another work he says, “‘ We have ever owned, that
““ Apostolical traditions, if we knew where to find them in any
* place but the Bible, are to be received and followed, if deli-
“ vered by them as of necessary obligation. But we do likewise
say, THAT WE KNOW NO SUCH TRADITIONS.” * What would he
have said, then, to Mr. Keble’s “ precious Apostolical relics ?”
This passage at once takes away the very foundation of that
high authority which is claimed for Catholic Consent, on the
ground of its delivering to us the oral teaching of the Apostles.
On the second and third points I would refer to the following
passages.
““ Whatsoever is delivered by the Church hath the same au-
“ thority which the Church hath ; which, though it be not equal
“ to the foregoing, the Church having no such Divine power,
“ nor infallible judgment, as the Apostles had, yet is of such
“ weight and moment that it ought to be reverenced next to
“theirs. I mean, the sense of the whole Church, which must be
** acknowledged also to be of greater or lesser authority as it
** was nearer or further off from the times of the Apostles.” ὃ
This passage shows that Bishop Patrick attached no idea of
Divine authority or infallibility to “the sense of the whole
Church,” and therefore used the words only in a general sense,
and never thought of making it part of the Rule of faith. And
so elsewhere he says, “If we will run up to the true antiquity,
“ there is nothing so antient as the Holy Scriptures. They are
“ the oldest records of religion, and by them if we frame our
“ lives, we are sure it is according to the most authentic and
“ antient directions of piety delivered in the holy oracles of
an ee And if the old rule be safe, that is true which
“ ἧς first, we are safe enough, for there is nothing before this to
“ be our guide, and there can be nothing after this but must be
“pRIED By 17. According to another rule, as old as reason
* itself, the first in every kind is the measure of all the rest.
“ And as sure as there is a gospel of God’s grace, they that walk
1 Disc. about Trad. Pt. ii. § 1. 2 Answer to Touchstone, p. 27.
3 Disc. about Trad. Introd.
4.96 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
* after this rule, this Divine Canon, peace shall be upon them
“and mercy, they being the true Israel or Church of God.” ?
Again ; “ There is no question to be made, but the Apostles
* taught the first Christians the meaning of those hard places
** which we find in their and other holy writings. But who can
“ tell us where to find certainly 80 MUCH AS ONE OF THEM? ...
« Nothing is more desirable than those Apostolical interpreta-
* tions of Scripture, nothing could be more useful, and yet we
“have No HOPE to meet with them either there [1. e. in the
* Romish Church] or indeed ANYWHERE ELSE.”*? <A passage
diametrically opposed to the statements of the Tractators.
Nay, in the very part quoted by Mr. Keble there is a passage
directly against him, in which Bishop Patrick says, approvingly,
that the Fathers made the Scripture “ the complete rule of their
faith whereby they ended controversies,” adding that “ there is no-
thing in the Nicene Creed but what is to be found in the Bible.”
And so he says in another work, ‘ Our doctrine is, that the
written word is the only Rule of our faith.” ? ,
And, in reply to the charge of the Romanists, that the Pro-
testants afirm,— That there is not in the Church one and that
“ an infallible rule for understanding the Holy Scriptures and
** conserving unity in matters of faith,” mstead of giving such
an answer as would flow from the view attributed to him, he
says,— We believe the Scripture itself gives us infallible direc-
** tions for the understanding of its sense in all things necessary,
* which if all would follow, there would be unity in matters of
4 necessary belief ;᾽ 5 and he distinctly asserts, that “ there 15. no
traditive interpretation of Scripture.” ὃ
Hence he speaks of Catholic Consent as “ an argument,” and
the decrees of the first four General Councils as “ a.great con-
firmation of our belief.”® And he thus describes the way in
which he conceives Tradition may be of service. ‘“ We allow,”
he says, “ that Tradition gives us a considerable assistance in
“such points as are not in so many letters and syllables con-
** tained in the Scriptures, but may be gathered from thence by
1 Disc. ab. Trad. sub fin. Ὁ ΤΟ, Ὁ σι
ΞΡ oa bb ΣΣ Selb: p.albe
3 Answer to Touchstone, p. 16. δ Disc. ab. Trad.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 497 -
“ good and manifest reasoning. Or, in plainer words perhaps,
** whatsoever tradition justifies any doctrine that may be proved
* by the Scriptures, though not found in express terms there,
“ we acknowledge to be of great use, ard readily receive and
* follow it, as serving very much to establish us more firmly in
“that truth, when we sce all Christians have adhered to it.
* This may be called a confirming tradition ; of which we have
“‘ an instance in the doctrine of infant baptism; which some
* antient Fathers call an Apostolical tradition. Not that it
“ cannot be proved by any place of Scripture ; no such matter :
“* for though we do not find it written in so many words that
“ infants are to be baptized, or that the Apostles baptized in-
“fants ; yet it may be proved out of the Scriptures; and, the
“ Fathers themselves who call it an Apostolical tradition, do
“ allege testimonies of the Scriptures to make it good. And
“ therefore, we may be sure, they comprehend the Scriptures
* within the name of Apostolical tradition, and believed that this
© doctrine was gathered out of the Scriptures, though not ex-
“ pressly treated of there. In like manner we in this Church
“ assert the authority of bishops above presbyters by a divine
“ right.... Now this we are persuaded may be plainly enough
““ proved to any man that is ingenuous, and will fairly consider
“ things, out of the Holy Scriptures, WITHOUT THE HELP OF
“TRADITION. But we also take in the assistance of this for the
“ conviction of gainsayers, &c.”!
Mr. Keble may reply, that the Bishop’ 5. expressions in other
places as to the authority of Catholic Consent appear to him
equivalent to making it part of the Rule of faith ; but this is no-
thing to the purpose, because it is evident that the Bishop him-
self drew a distinction between the two, and therefore cannot
fairly be quoted by Mr. Keble as maintaining his views.
As to Church-tradition supplying some divinely-revealed
truths not contained at all in Scripture, Bishop Patrick distinctly
says,—“ Nothing may be taught as a piece of RELIGION, which
hath not the forenamed original,” [i. 6. is contained in the
Scriptures]. ΤῸ which he subjoins merely this remark,—“ Yet
“1 must add, that those things which have been universally be-
1 ΤΌ. Pt. 1.§ 5.
VOL, III. K K
498 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ lieved, and not contrary to Scripture, though not written at
“ all there, nor to be proved from thence, we do receive as pious
“ opinions.” And he instances the perpetual virginity of the
mother of our Lord, “ which,” he says, “ is so likely a thing,
“and so universally received, that I do not see why we should
“not look upon it as a genuine Apostolical tradition.”! That
this was “ universally received,” we have already shown to be a
mistaken notion, and we have no evidence that Bishop Patrick
ever directed his inquiries particularly to this point. But to the
reception of it by those who are disposed to entertain it, there
can be no possible objection, provided it is not obtruded upon
us as a doctrine which we ought to hold.
As it respects points of order or practice, the extracts already
given will show Bishop Patrick’s view as to the more important
of them, as infant baptism, &c. Concerning others he speaks
thus; “ We allow also the traditions of the Church about mat-
“ters of order, rites, and ceremonies. Only we do not take
“them to be parts of God’s worship; and if they be not ap-
““ pointed in the Holy Scriptures, we believe they may be altered by
“ the same or the like authority with that which ordained them.
** So our Church hath excellently and fully resolved as concern-
“ img such matters in the 34th article of religion.”? And so,
further on, speaking of the Church of Rome neglecting to
observe some things which Tradition mentions as Apostolical,
instancing the three immersions in baptism, he says, “ And yet
“ there is no such thing now in use in their Church no more
“ than in ours; who justify ourselves, as I showed above, by a true
“ opinion that rites and ceremonies are not unalterable; which it
“is impossible for them to do, unless they will cease to press
“the necessity of other traditions upon us, which never were
“so generally received as this which is now abolished. To
“‘ which may be added the custom of giving the eucharist to
“ infants, which prevailed for several ages, and is called by St.
“ Austin an Apostolical tradition.”* Where we may clearly
see, that without undertaking to determine the question whether
some of these practices had or had not sufficient proof of
their Apostolical origin, he maintains, as the doctrine of our
1 Ib. Pt. 1. 8 6. 2 Ib. Pt. 1. § 7. 3 Tb. Pt. 2. 8 2.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 499
Church, that at any rate they are not of perpetual obligation on
the Church, which, practically, amounts to what we contend for.
We come next to the fourth, and very important question, as
to the necessity of an authoritative interpreter of Scripture
even in the fundamental points, on account of the obscurity of
Scripture.
On this important point thus clearly speaks Bishop Patrick.
“ No Protestant will say, that all Scriptures are easy to be
ἐς understood...... Some are easy, as much, that is, as is neces-
“ sary to our salvation. Which is the express affirmation of St.
“ Chrysostom in many places, ‘ All things necessary are mani-
“ fest.” Hom. 3. in 2 Thess.” ἢ
Again, in another work, entitled, “ Search the Scriptures,”
one point which he undertakes to show is, “ that most things in
“ the Holy Scriptures are so far from being hard to be under-
* stood that they are easy ; nay, ALL things absolutely necessary
“ for us are VERY EASY.”” “ Ifthe words of the Spirit of God,
** which are as bright as a lamp to give light unto our feet, may
*‘ be mistaken or abused, then no man, no company of men, no
* interpreter, no council, can draw up any words but they may
“be perverted by those who have no mind to be directed by
*‘ them, but are concerned to put another sense than they in-
“tended upon them. And indeed it is no slight argument
“that the Holy Scriptures are easy to be understood in all
“ things necessary for our instruction, because God would have
“ all, even the meanest capacity, to read them...... It would
“ have been in vain to require men to search the Scriptures, as
“not only God, but his Church in antient times, did, if they
* could not readily there meet with satisfaction.” 3
“By whose authority did St. John write, or by whose
“assistance did he perform this work? Was it not by our
** Saviour’s, and by the guidance of the Holy Ghost? And to
“ what purpose was he inspired, but to work faith in those
“ men’s souls who read his writings? And what faith was
“this? Only the belief of some few things which are clear
“ enough, but not sufficient to make us wise unto salvation?
1 Answer to Touchstone, p. 21. 2 Search the Scriptures, 1685. 12mo. p. 73.
3 pp. 92, 3.
KK2
500 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ No such matter. He wrote that we might have so much faith
“as should give us eternal life through Christ Jesus. Now
“‘ who can believe that he who wrote by that Spirit which per-
“ fectly knew the several tempers and capacities of every age,
“and with an intention to breed saving faith in their souls,
“ should yet write so obscurely that he could not be understood
“ of them for whose good and benefit he wrote? Nothing but
“ interest, that is, nothing but that very wicked temper which
“blinded the Jews, and made them deny our Saviour and
“ crucify him, can induce a man to be of this opinion.”?
“ Some places of Holy Scripture are hard to be understood
“ by some persons and by some capacities, and in some ages
“ and times, and some matters that are not of general concern-
“ ment; but in that which concerns men of all ages, capacities,
“and conditions, and to every man in his order and vocation,
“ according to the measure of God’s gifts bestowed on him, we
«ὁ affirm, with the greatest reason, that the Scripture is plain
“ and easy to be understood, provided men have a will to learn
“ what they are to believe and do.”* ‘* The learned may abuse
“them as well as the unlearned, if they be ill disposed; and
“ the unlearned may get good by them as well as the learned,
“if they be well affected. There are some things clearer than
“ that any can doubt of them, or stand in need of an interpreter ;
“ the simplest may easily apprehend them, and be instructed by
“ them, if they come with honest and good hearts to learn their
“ duty; and yet the wisest will not apprehend them or not
“ yeceive them, though never so plain, if their hearts be other-
“ wise bent and ill disposed in their affections.” ° ‘‘ Of this we
“may be certain, that ‘it is the good pleasure of God,’ as an
“ excellent man speaks, ‘and his unalterable decree, that the
“ Holy Scriptures,’ at least in their drift and design, ‘shall be
“ plain and easy to such as faithfully practise their most plain
“and easy precepts, but hard and difficult to be understood
“ aright of such as wilfully transgress them.’ There is nothing
“‘ more perspicuously set down in Holy Seripture than this, as
“ would be easy to show, if it would not enlarge this book too
“ much, from such words as those of St. Peter, ‘God resisteth
1 pp, 94, 5. 2 p. 105. 3 p. 63.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 501
“ the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ And therefore,
“ should we admit of any authority equivalent to the Holy
“ Scriptures, the question would still remain, whether the infal-
“]ibility of that authority could take away that blindness of
“ heart which by God’s just judgment falls upon all those who
“ “detain the truth of God in unrighteousness.’ If for their
“ disobedience to evident and plain truths, God punish them
“ with such spiritual darkness that they discern not his will
“ yevealed in his written word, no other infallible authority can
“enlighten them, and make those scales fall from their eyes
“which hinder their sight in the means of their salvation.
“ They will everlastingly go on in darkness, because having
“ light presented to them they preferred darkness before it.’’ 1
Lastly, as to receiving Scripture on the authority of Tradition.
On this point thus speaks Bishop Patrick ;—“ That word of
““ God which was once unwritten being now written, we acknow-
“ ledge ourselves to be much indebted to the Church of God im all
“ foregoing ages, which hath preserved the Scriptures, and de-
“ livered them down to us as his word, which we ought to do
“ unto those that shall succeed us. .... This tradition we own,
“it being universal, continued, uninterrupted, and undenied.
“ Though in truth this is tradition in another sense of the word,
“ not signifying the doctrine delivered unto us, but the manner
“ and means of its delivery. And therefore, if any member of
“ our Church be pressed by those of the Romish persuasion
“ with this argument for their present traditions, that Scripture
“ itself is come to us by Tradition, let them answer thus, Very
“ right, it is so, and we thank God for it ; therefore, let this be
“no part of our dispute, it being a thing presupposed in all
** discourses about religion, a thing agreed among all Christian
“ people, that we read the word of God when we read the holy
““ Scriptures. Which being delivered to us, and accepted by us
“as his word, we see no necessity of any other tradition or
“ doctrine which is not to be found there, or cannot be proved
“ from thence, for they tell us they are able to make even the
“‘ man of God wise unto salvation. And if they press you again,
“ and say, How do you know that some books are canonical and
1 pp. 109, 10.
502 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ others not, is it not by a constant tradition? Answer them
“ again in this manner, Yes, this is true also.... but know
“ withal, that this universal Tradition of the books of Scripture
« is no part of the tradition or doctrine delivered, that is, no doc-
“ trine distinct from the Scriptures, but only the instrument or
“ means of conveying that doctrine to us. In short, it is the
“ fidelity of the Church with whom the canon of Scripture was
** deposed, but is no more a doctrine, not written in the Senp-
“ ture, than the tradition or delivery of the Code or Book of the
* Civil Law is any opinion or law not written in that Code.....
“ And if they urge you further, and say that the very credit of the
* Scriptures depends upon Tradition, tell them that it is a speech
“ not to be endured, if they mean thereby that it gives the Scrip-
* ture its authority .... for it is to say, that man gives authority
** to God’s word. Whereas in truth the holy Scriptures are not
“ therefore of Divine authority, because the Church hath delivered
“ them so to be, but the Church hath delivered them so to be,
“ because it knew them to be of such authority. And if the
“ Church should have conceived or taught otherwise of these
“¢ writings than as of the undoubted oracles of God, she would
* have erred damnably in such a tradition. I shall sum up
“ what hath been said in this second particular in a few words.
““ Christ and his Apostles at first taught the Church by word of
“mouth, but afterward that which they preached was by the
“ commandment of God committed to writing, and delivered
““ unto the Church to be the ground of our faith. Which is no
* more than Irenzeus hath said in express words (lib. i. e. 1.)
** speaking of them by whom the gospel came into all nations ;
« «which they then preached, but afterward by the will of
“ God delivered unto us in the Scriptures, to be in time to come
“ the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ ” +
I proceed to consider the testimony of
Dr. WATERLAND,
From whose remarks on “ the use and value of ecclesiastical
antiquity in controversies of faith,’ in his Treatise on “The
importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” Mr. Keble has
1 Dise. about Trad, Pt. 1. ὃ 2.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 503
given an extract, to show that he supported the views of the
Tractators. From those remarks I am so far from disagreeing,
that I scarcely know a treatise where the subject is, upon the
whole, more judiciously handled. And we may observe, that the
occasion which led him to write it, would naturally lead him to
affix to Antiquity as high a value as he could suppose to belong
to it, as he was vindicating the strength of the argument derived
from the testimony of the primitive Church in favor of the
doctrine of the Trinity. He is therefore pleading for all the
value being given to such an argument which it can bear, and
the cautious and judicious way in which he does it, shows how
totally opposite his views were to those of the system under
review.
On the extract given in the “ Catena,” I would make but
one observation, and that is, that it would have been well to
have let the reader understand, that the whole of the former
part of that extract has relation only to “the public acts of the
“ antient Church appearing in Creeds made use of in baptism,
* and in the censures passed upon heretics,” which would have
appeared, if the zntroductory sentence to the paragraph quoted
had been given, which is important, as showing that in his
observations he was referring to certain particular documents,
and not to the writings of the Fathers generally. To these
documents he appears to allude afterwards, as “ writings then
[i. e. in primitive times] extant,” enabling those who lived
during the period that the unanimity of the Apostolic Churches
lasted, to raise a good “ argument” from that unanimity thus
proved, while we can only raise an argument from that una-
nimity, “ provided we have first proved [aud there hes the
“ difficulty] that the faith we contend for is the very same that
“ obtained in the Churches of that age;” and though some
considerable evidence may be obtained on this point, such as
still to make it a good argument, it is not such as it was then,
from the deficiency of documents. This is the precise view he
afterwards inculcates, in a passage I shall quote presently.
I now proceed to give some further extracts, which, with one
exception, (as noted,) are all taken from the chapter on “the
use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity,” from which Mr. Keble
himself has quoted,
504: DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
As it respects the first position, the whole chapter shows,
that such a notion never entered Dr. Waterland’s head, as
that the Church-tradition we now have, should be considered
a divine informant. The following passage will abundantly
show this, as well as prepare us for his views on the subsequent
poiuts.
“Tt is pleaded that men ought to judge for themselves, to
“ make use of their own understandings, and to admit no human
“ authorities. I allow the plea; but I presume it is not hereby
“ meant that we should receive no human explications of texts ;
“ for then we must receive none at all...... As to authority, mm
“a strict and proper sense, I do not know that the Fathers
“ have any over us; they are all dead men. Therefore we urge
* not their authority, but their testimony, their suffrage, their
“« judgment, as carrying great force of reason with it ; and reason
“ we should all submit to. ‘Taking them in here as lights or
“ helps, is doing what is reasonable, and using our own under-
“ standing in the best manner, and to the best purposes; it is
“ judging rightly for ourselves. Jf 7¢ were not so, what prudent
“man would advise it, or endeavour to persuade others to it ὃ
“‘ But, says an objector, do not you follow the Fathers? Yes,
“as far as reason requires, and no further; therefore this is
“ following our own reason ; and he that deserts the Fathers in
“this instance [the doctrine of the Trinity] deserts himself,
“ and his own reason. Their sentiments, so antient, so universal,
“ carry the force of AN ARGUMENT along with them; and a very
“ strong argument too, all things considered. Therefore, the
“‘ being conducted by those sentiments along with Scripture, is
“the same thing with bemg -convinced or persuaded by
“ argument ; which is hearkening to right reason, which is sub-
“ mitting to God, who gave us reason for our guide, and not to
“ human authority. It is following the safest and best light
“‘ which Divine Providence has graciously afforded us; for, as a
“ great and good Prelate has observed, ‘the general Tradition
“of the Church, next to Scripture, is the best and surest
“ confirmation of this great point now in question between us ;
“and that which gives us the greatest and ¢ruest light for the
“right understanding of the true sense and meaning of Serip-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 505
“ture, not only in this, but in most other important doctrines
“ of the Christian religion.” (Abp. Tillotson.)” Ὁ
Here the matter is placed upon its right footing. The testi-
mony of the Fathers on any of the great doctrines of the Chris-
tian faith is a good and strong argument in favor of that which
it supports, and may be highly useful in guiding us to the
right understanding of Scripture, but it is no divine informant ;
it is but the testimony of a certain number of fallible men, whose
witness, from their proximity to the times of the Apostles, is of
importance.
Dr. Waterland’s views, however, will be still more fully mani-
fested in the extracts which I will now proceed to give, with
reference to the second and third positions; and these extracts
I have selected so as to show what was his opinion as to the
value of the testimony of the primitive Church, and how he ap-
plied that testimony.
Speaking of a Roman Gatholic insinuating that the doctrine
of the Trinity was not to be gathered from Scripture, except
through the aid of the Church’s expositions, he says, “ he pleads
“ under cover for imposing a sense upon Scripture, instead of
“ taking one from the natural force of the words. This never was
‘the advice of the antients ; neither ought it to be the practice
“ of the moderns. . . . and indeed this gentleman afterwards gives
“very broad intimations that Scripture is not the whole [the
“ italics are his] Rule of faith. So now the secret is out ; and I
“ suppose by this time it ts manifest what cause he is serving.”
(p. 256.) Such is Dr. Waterland’s advocacy of the notion that
Scripture and Tradition form jointly the Rule of faith !
Proceeding to consider what is the value of Antiquity in the
interpretation of Scripture, he, after noticing the various ways
im which men are likely to be misled, observes, “ These things
“ considered, it will be highly expedient to take in all the helps
“we can procure for the ascertaining the true and full meaning
“‘ of sacred Writ, and for preserving, so far as in us lies, the
“ doctrines of Christ. No proper means are to be neglected or
“ set aside, lest we fall into error for want of the use of such
“ means, or be found guilty of despising the gifts of God. Now
1 Works, ed. by Van Mildert, Oxf. 1823. vol. v. pp. 330, 331.
506 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
** we may come to the main question whether antiquity may not
“be justly reputed one of the proper means, or how far it is so.”
(p. 260.) He then points out in what ways the antients may
be of use to us in this matter, and observes ;—
“1, The antients who lived nearest to the Apostolical times,
“are of some use to us, considered merely as contemporary
*‘ writers, for their diction or phraseology.... II. A further
“use of the antient Fathers is seen in their letting us into the
“ knowledge of antiquated rites and customs, upon which some
“ Scripture allusions may be formed.... III. The antient Fa-
“ thers are further useful, as giving us insight into the history
“ of the age in which the sacred books (of the New Testament
“1 mean,) were written.... IV. I come, fourthly, to mention
“ς some more peculiar and eminent views, in which the antientest
“ Fathers may be exceeding useful for fixing the sense of Scrip-
“ ture in controverted texts. Those that lived in or near the
““ Apostolical times, might retain ingmemory what the Apostles
“ themselves, or their immediate successors, thought and said
“upon such and such points. And though there is no trust-
“ing in such case to oral Tradition distinct from Scripture,
“nor to written, disagreeing with Scripture, yet written ac-
“ counts consonant to Scripture are of use to confirm and
“ strengthen Scripture, and to ascertain its true meaning....
“ V. The next consideration is this, that a very particular
“ regard is due to the public acts of the antient Church, appear-
“ ing inCreeds made use of in baptism, and in the censures passed
“‘ upon heretics ; and the observable harmony and unanimity of
** the several Churches in such acts is a circumstance which adds
* irresistible force to them.... Not that one would, at this time
“ of day, presume to rest an article of faith upon Church records
* alone, or upon anything BesipEes Scripture; but, while the
* superior proof from sacred Writ is the ground of our faith, the
“ subordinate proof from Antiquity may be a good mark of direc-
“* tion for the interpretation of Scripture in the prime doctrines.
“ If we can prove, from antient records, what that faith was,
*‘ which obtained so universally in the second century, and later,
“ we can then argue from it in like manner, as Irenzus, Hege-
“ sippus, Tertullian, yea, and Clemens also, and Origen did, and
*
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 507
“ can make the like use of it, against those that pervert Scrip-
“ture. Only, indeed, there will be this difference, that the
“ argument, as now urged, is become one of the learned kind,
* and therefore not so well adapted to common capacities, as it
“ formerly was; and it is somewhat WEAKER TO US in another
“ respect ; as we have not so many evidences now extant, as those
“ writers then had, whereby to prove such constant succession of
“ doctrine so long, and such unanimity of the Churches in pro-
“ fessing it. But, notwithstanding, we have evidences suffi-
* cient to persuade rational men; and the arcuMENT is still a
“ good one, though with some abatements. VI. There is one con-
* sideration more tending still to strengthen the former, and
“ which must by no means be omitted ; namely, that the charis-
“‘ mata, the extraordinary gifts, were then frequent, visibly rested
“im and upon the Church, and there only.” (pp. 260—72.)
Hence he proceeds to draw his conclusions as to “the use of
Antiquity ;” and lays down, as inferences from the observations
already made, these two conclusions ;—(1.) “ The least that we
“ can infer, from what hath been already said, 15, that the sense
“ of the antients, once known, is an-useful check upon any new
“ interpretations of Scripture, affecting the maz doctrines. It
* has a negative voice, if I may so call it, in such a case; and it
“ is reason sufficient for throwing off any such novel expositions,
“ that they cross upon the undoubted faith of all the antient
““ Churches, or contain some doctrine, as of moment, to be
“ received, which the antients universally rejected, or never
“ admitted.” “ A negative argument, therefore, being allowed,
“‘ as, indeed, there is plain reason for it,—it must be allowed
“also that the Fathers are of use to us, so far as such an argu-
* ment can be of use; and that the antients may be of great use
“in the Church, in this view, is very apparent ; being that they
“serve as an outwork, which Daillé takes notice of, for the
“repelling the presumption of those who would forge a new
faith.” (pp. 275, 277.) (2.) “1 would next advance a step
“ further than the mere negative argument can directly carry us ;
“ for I conceive that ajust inference may be drawn from that
* concession, which will extend our views somewhat beyond
“ what I have just now mentioned, If the antients could not
508 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ be universally ignorant of any necessary doctrine, since it is
“morally absurd that they should be deficient in neces-
“ saries; by parity of reason, it must be allowed that they could
“ not generally fall into fundamental errors, because that, also,
“ would be failing in necessaries ; inasmuch as nothing can be
“ more necessary in our religious concernments, than to stand
“ clear of all pernicious or dangerous mistakes. From whence
“ it follows, that, whatever the antient Churches universally ad-
“ mitted as a necessary article of faith, must, at the lowest, be
“ safe doctrine.” And applying this second principle to the
case before him, the doctrine of the Trinity, he adds,—“ And
“ because it is hard to conceive, how such a doctrine as we are
“ now upon could be safe, ifit were not true, we may reasonably
“ infer, that it is true as well as safe..... I apprehend withal,
“ that the same conclusion will more directly and closely follow
“ from the principles before laid down; namely, that, morally
“ sneaking, it is absurd to suppose that the primitive Churches
“ should so universally maintain one and the same doctrine, if
“ they had not received it from the beginning ; especially con-
“ sidering the important nature of the doctrine. .... Any other
“ pretended sense of Scripture, as implying a kind of moral ab-
“ surdity, ought to be rejected ; unless 10 can be proved to carry
“ with it such a degree of moral certainty, as is more than suffi-
“ cient to countervail such prescription or prejudice against it.
«|... It was morally impossible that the primitive Churches
““ should err in doctrines of that high importance, so soon, or so
“‘ universally.” “The sum, then, of the whole case, in few
“ words, is this. 1. We assert that the received doctrine of the
“ Trinity is ‘proved directly to be true, and consequentially to
“be important, from Scripture itself, according to the known
“ rules of grammar and criticism; and such proof cannot be
“ evaded or eluded, without doing the greatest violence imaginable
“ to the texts. 2. In the next place, we maintain that the antient
* Churches taught the same doctrine as an essential, and con-
“‘ demned the contrary opinions as pernicious and dangerous ;
“‘ which consideration makes it now doubly absurd to interpret
“ Scripture in contradiction to that doctrine. 3. The result of
“the two foregoing considerations is, that since we have thus
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 509
“ proved the truth of our doctrine, and the importance of it,
“ both ways, directly from Scripture, and indirectly from the
* antients, I say the result is, that this is the faith which we
“ ought to contend for; we are morally certain, every way, that
“it is true ; and if true, important of course.” (pp. 278—81.)
In all these statements in favor of the application of the argu-
ment from Antiquity, as a strong moral confirmation of the truth
of the orthodox interpretation of Scripture, I most cordially
concur. These statements are altogether different to the high-
flying claims in behalf of Antiquity, which characterise the
system under review; and I have given them at some length,
in order that the reader may the better see what was the
view, positive as well as negative, taken in this matter by
Dr. Waterland.
The following passages, occurring afterwards, in reply to
some objections, will still further show, that he held the argu-
ment from Antiquity to be not authoritative, but only probable
and confirmatory.
“ Comparing Scripture with Scripture is a very good method
“ of interpretation. Yea, and the best and most satisfactory of
“ any to every rational mind; but still we do not see reason why
“it should be thought to supersede any other that is good. For
“ after we have thereby obtained all the home light we can get,
“ where will be the harm of admitting still further light, if we
“can procure it from abroad? The more we have of both kinds
the betters. 0... The excellent Buddeus, otherwise a very
‘judicious writer, appears not so clear or not so accurate
“in his account of this matter, as might be wished. He
* sives his judgment, “that neither natural reason nor tradi-
κ᾽ tion should be the rule of interpreting, but Scripture itself,
“and the analogy of faith’ (Isag. . 1795.) Had he said
“ neither one nor other, but all together, I think he had said
“ yight: but as he has taken in only two of the things, excluding
“ the rest, as it seems, from bearing a part in the interpretation
“ of Scripture, he appears to me to have judged wrong upon the
ἐς case, or at least to have fallen short of his wonted accuracy.
“ For certainly he ought to have allowed something to natural
“ reason, and something also to Antiquity, though not everything.
510 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ There is a great deal of difference between admitting either of
“them to govern absolutely, and throwing them quite out ; and
“ there is a just medium between giving each of them A NEGATIVE,
“ and making either of them soLE UMPIRE [which latter is pre-
cisely what the Tractators do in respect of Antiquity].” (pp.
“ 288, 9.) “A man may be able to evade Scripture alone,
“who may not be able to evade both Scripture and Antiquity ;
“ or if he can evade both, yet perhaps not so easily ; therefore,
«if the taking in Antiquity is of service, as it reinforces truth,
“and bears the harder upon error, it is worth the urging; for
“the same reason as all kinds of arguments or dissuasives
“ avainst sin and wickedness, are to be urged in due place.”
(p. 322.) And he tells us, in a former part, that though Ter-
tullian laid so much stress upon Tradition, as at that time “ an
“ argument drawn from sensible fact, more affecting, obvious,
“ and popular, than dry altercations about the authenticity of
“ the books of Scripture, or the precise meaning of words ;” yet
that “nevertheless, as often as he employed his pen in contro-
“ versy with heretics, and drew up polemical tracts, though he
“ would not omit to mention the additional advantage he had
“in point of Prescription or Tradition, (Contr. Mare. lb. 1.
“ e, 1. 20. lib. iii. ¢. 1. Contr. Prax. c. 2.), yet he chose to pass
“ it off in short hints, and not to dwell upon it; but rather to
“ rest the issue of the main cause upon Scripture and reason.”
(pp. 269, 70.)
I add one more extract, taken from a subsequent work.
“ For the right understanding of Scripture, it is of great mo-
“ ment to know what the most eminent writers or teachers,
“ antient and modern, have thought before us on the same sub-
“ ject, and more especially to observe what they unanimously
“ agreed in . . . . but THE COMMON REASON OF MANKIND IS
“‘ PROPERLY THE RULE OF INTERPRETATION . . . and that com-
* mon reason shines out the brightest, and appears in greatest
“ perfection, in the wnited verdict of the wisest and most excel-
“ Jent men.”
Further, as to the perfection of Scripture as a Rule both of
faith and practice, he says ;—
1 Rev. of Doctrine of Eucharist, Introd. Works, vol. vii. p. 4.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 511
“The perfection of Scripture is a point allowed.” (p. 283.)
* When we say that Scripture is perfect, we mean, generally,
“as to the matter of it, which is full and complete to be a RULE
“ OF LIFE AND MANNERS, without taking in any additional rule
“ to join with it.” (Ib.)
On the subject of the fourth position, he says ;—
“1 doubt not to say, that the Scripture is plain enough in this
* cause (the Trinity] for any honest Turk or Indian to judge of,
“ who is but able to discern the difference between wresting a
“ text, and giving it an easy and natural interpretation. Nor
** do I see why a man may not be as certain of the construction
* of Scripture in this article, from the words themselves, compar-
“ing Scriptures with Scriptures, as he may be of the sense of
“ Homer or Aristotle, of Cicero or Cesar, in plain and clear
“passages. Nevertheless, if over and above this any further
* light or strength may arise, from comparing Scripture and
« Antiquity together, it is an additional advantage to our cause,
“ such as we are thankful for, and constantly make use of. All
“ kinds of evidences are useful; and there is so much weakness
“ generally in mankind, that we have no reason to throw aside
“any assistances given us for relief or remedy. Antiquity,
* therefore, superadded to Scripture, is what we sincerely value,
“and pay a great regard to..... St. Athanasius and St.
“ς Basil pleaded the same cause, and exactly in the same way,
“ as we of the Church of England do. They appealed to Scrip-
“ ture first ; speaking for itself, and proving its own sense to
* the common reason of mankind, according to the just rules of
“ orammar and criticism: after that, they referred also to the
“« well-known faith of all the antient Churches, as superabun-
“ dantly confirming the same rational and natural construction.”
(pp. 254, 5.)
“ We allow that Scripture is plain in necessaries ; yea, it is
“ WHAT WE URGE AND CONTEND FoR;” adding, “ while Scripture
“jis plain, Antiquity is plain also; and two plain things are
“ better than one.... There is so much weakness commonly in
*‘ human nature, and so much reluctance shown to the recep-
* tion of divine truths, that we have need of all the plain things
“ we can anywhere procure ; and had we twenty more as plain
512 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ as these, we could make use of them all; and, indeed, should
“ be obliged to do so, lest otherwise we should be found guilty
“of despising the blessings of heaven.” ‘We admit, as I
“‘ before said, that Scripture is VERY PLAIN IN NECESSARIES.”
“ Tf they [i.e. antient monuments] were all lost, burnt, or other-
“ wise extinguished, our Scripture-proof, supposing Scripture
“ itself to want no proof, would stand firm without them; but
“ when we have the antients to compare with Scripture, and know —
“ that, in the very nature of the thing, they ought to tally with
*“ each other; the antients now, of consequence, must be either
a very strong confirmation as to any doctrines held for articles
« of faith, or as strong an olyection. They are considerable dis-
* advantages where they run counter, and as considerable
“ advantages where they favor.” (pp. 284—8.)
As it respects the subject of the fifth position, I can find but
two incidental allusions to it; but as they might seem to sup-
port the view opposed in this work, I subjoin them.
The first respects the Canon of Scripture, and intimates that
we receive the testimony of the antient Fathers as proof “ with
respect to the Canon of Scripture,” (p. 271.) which we allow ;
though we add, that it is not the only argument, not the whole
proof, we have for it.
The other respects the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture,
and is as follows. “ Even common Christians,” he says, “ do
“ enjoy the benefit of it [i. 6. Antiquity], if not at first hand,
“ yet at the second, third, or fourth... .. How do they know,
** for instance, that Scripture is the word of God? They know
“it immediately or proximately from their proper guides, or other
‘¢ instructors ; who, in the last resort, learn it from the antients.”’
“ (pp. 286, 7.) That Dr. Waterland, however, meant by this,
that we believe that Scripture is the word of God, solely and
entirely, because the antients tell us that it is so, no impartial
reader of his works will, I thik, conclude. At any rate, it
affects not his testimony with regard to the more material points
of the system under review, which are included in the former
positions.
We come now to the last on Mr. Keble’s list, with whose
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 519
testimony we shall, as proposed, close our counter appeal to his
witnesses, viz.—
Bispop Van MILDERT.
On the extract given by Mr. Keble no further remark seems
to be necessary (as there is nothing in it in which we do not
fully concur) than to ask how it is, that a writer, who is acknow-
ledged to have made the following remark, (occurring in that
extract,) can be quoted as advocating the views of the Tractators.
We do not claim for them [i. 6. the Fathers] .... any absolute
* authority as Scripture interpreters. The appeal still lies FROM
* vHEM, as from all other religious instructors, to THAT WORD
“ IsELF, which was no less their Rule of faith, than it is ours.”
Mr. Keble’s extract is taken from the Bishop’s Bampton Lec-
tures, entitled, “An Inquiry into the general principles of
Scripture-interpretation ;”” and to this work I shall confine
myself in the passages I am now about to give.
On the subject, then, of the first, second, and third positions,
we have the following testimonies.
“ Traditions, in the sense in which the observance of them is
“ enjoined by the Apostles, are received by Protestants with as
“ much reverence as by the Romish Church. For, according
* to the Apostolical usage of the word, the traditions enjoined
“to be observed are the doctrines and precepts delivered,
“ whether orally or in writing, by the Apostles themselves.
“ «Stand fast,’ says St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ‘and hold
the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word,
“or our Epistle,’ (2 Thess. ii. 15.) that is, whatever has been
« personally delivered to you by me either in preaching or in
‘ writing. Protestants do not question the truth of the position,
“ that the word of an inspired Apostle, whether written or un-
“ written, is to be regarded with entire deference ; since in
“‘ whatever way the word of God be communicated to us, it has
* the same claim to our submission, provided we know that it
* proceeds from him. But here is the question from which the
“ Romanist has no escape, Can after ages have the same kind
“ of assurance respecting the authenticity of the written and of the
“ἡ unwritten word? We CONTEND THAT THERE CANNOT NOW BE
** SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF ANY SUCH
“UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS; AND THAT THEREFORE ON THE
VOL. 111. LL
514 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“WRITTEN WORD ONLY WE CAN WITH SAFETY RELY. ON
‘‘ THIS GROUND THE SCRIPTURE IS MAINTAINED TO BE NOW
“‘ THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH....... The Governors of the
« Church.... record no intimation given by the sacred writers
“ themselves that their oral communications were to be trans-
“mitted to succeeding generations, or promulgated by the
“ Church as authentic documents. On this is founded the
“distinction between Scripture and Unwritten Tradition.
“The former is a structure compact, and resting on an im-
“ movable basis; the latter is composed of uncemented materials,
** AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY SOLID FOUNDATION.” (pp. 72—5.)
Stating the general design of his Lectures, he says,—“ It is
“‘ yurposed to consider in the first place the moral qualification
“requisite for a right apprehension of the sacred word. An
* inquiry will then be instituted into the paramount authority of
“ that word as the Rule of faith anD ITS OWN INTERPRETER :!
“ and in connexion with this will follow a consideration of the
“ subsidiary means by which, subject to that authority, its inter-
““ pretation must be sought.” (p. 22.)
Again, on the text 1 Pet. iv. 11. “If any man speak, let him
speak as the oracles of God,” he comments thus ;—“ The neces-
“ sity of a constant recurrence to first principles as a preventive
“ of any deviation from truth is in no case more apparent than
“in the study of Holy Writ. For since the great foundation
“on which revealed religion is established is an absolutely
“ Divine authority, everything which tends to displace that its
‘ fundamental basis will endanger the whole system; and the
consequences must be infinitely more injurious to the best
interests of mankind than any similar violation of principles
in matters of human science; according to the acknowledged
maxims, that the worst of abuses is the abuse of that which
is best in itself, and that no truth can be made more certain
than by sufficient evidence that it proceeds from God. The
“ Apostolical injunction in the text evidently rests upon the
΄-
ce
1 Compare with this the following passage in Mr. Newman’s Lectures ;—“ This
5 the Anglican principle ; we do not profess to judge of Scripture in greater mat-
ters by itself, but by means of an external guide,” that external guide being “the
early Church.”—Newm. p. 183.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 515
“ supposition of this supreme authority of Holy Scripture as the
“ Rule of faith AND THE INTERPRETER OF ITS OWN DOCTRINE.
“ «Tf any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God ;’ let
““ him, both as to the doctrine and the interpretation, be careful
“ to advance nothing contrary to those Sacred Oracles, nothing
“that may bring into competition with them authority of a
“ different kind. But, however indisputable the principle may
“appear on which this injunction is founded, it is not only
“ continually violated through ignorance or inadvertency, but a
“ very great portion of the errors and corruptions prevalent in
* the Christian world evidently spring from systems virtually,
“ of not formally, opposed to it; from maintaining the necessity
“of some ulterior tribunal of appeal for the decision of contro-
“ versies, and for framing uwnerring standards of interpretation.
““ Besides the moral dispositions, therefore, already shown to be
* requisite in the search after spiritual knowledge, it is neees-
* sary to determine this great preliminary question, Whether
“there be any authority paramount or even equivalent to the
“ Sacred Word, which either as jointly connected with it, or as
“ its judicial superior, may claim our unreserved obedience? If
“there be any such, the sincere inquirer after truth must
* submit to its pretensions. If there be not, to admit such
“ pretensions is not only superfluous but dangerous; as dero-
* eating from the authority which possesses the rightful claim.
“Upon this head, St. Peter’s admonition might be deemed
“ decisive, and there are other texts of Scripture which ought to
* place it beyond dispute.” (pp.57—9.) And, in reply to the
objection of “the Romanist,” that “the Scriptures cannot be
« deemed an infallible rule to the unlearned who read them in
“ translations only...... and there is besides so much inherent
“ obscurity in the original itself, as to require some authori-
“tative and infallible interpreter to render it an unerring
* standard of truth,” he says,—‘ Let us consider the question
“ as we are wont to do in the case of a work of merely human
“ authority. Were the purpose simply to ascertain the sense of
“such a work, that sense —whatever helps might be found
“¢ useful for its illustration—would be sought for in the work itself,
“ and the book be interpreted as far as possible in conformity
LL2
516 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ with its own declared principles.” (p.68.) “The full and
“clear interpretation of these [i. 6. spiritual] truths...... is
“ to be obtained by faithfully comparing together whatever the
“ word of God has made known to us concerning ‘spiritual
things,’—things above the reach of our natural faculties, and
“ of which we can otherwise obtain no certain or satisfactory
“information. This principle of interpreting Scripture by
“ Scripture is what theologians call the analogy of faith.”
(pp. 179, 80.) “ Whatever be the authority that assumes a
“ power to determine, suo jure, the sense of Scripture......
“THAT AUTHORITY ITSELF, IF ITS RIGHT BE ADMITTED, BE-
“COMES THE RULE OF FAITH, AND VIRTUALLY SUPERSEDES THE
“orHer.” (p. 72.) “Tf we bear in mind, that whatever was
“ once immediately communicated to the Sacred Writers by Divine
“ inspiration, has been in effect mediately communicated through
““ them to the rest of mankind, so that, they having been ‘ taught of
“ God, we also have by their instrumentality been taught of him,
‘ we shall perceive that nothing more is wanting to the entire fulfil-
« ment of his promises, than that we should faithfully abide by the
‘ written word as THE EXCLUSIVE RULE OF FAITH.” (p. 94.)
« ΤῈ any man speak,’ says the Apostle, ‘let him speak as the
oracles of God;’ let him found his doctrine on the word of
God, let him search there for what he intends to deliver as
sacred truth ; let his first inquiry and his last appeal be directed
“ to that Fountain of heavenly wisdom. In opposition to this
“ principle, different maxims have been inculcated by different
“parties. If any man speak, says the Papist, let him speak as
“ the oracles of the Church ; according to PRIMITIVE TRADITIONS,
“to GeneraL Councits, or to the Pope’s Decretals; whose
“ decisions are infallible...... If any man speak, says the self-
“ called Rationalist, let him speak as the oracles of reason......
“Tf any man speak, says the Fanatic, let him speak as the
“ oracles of the inward light...... With these several parties
“the sound Scrrprurat Curistian? has to contend in main-
“taining the supreme authority of the oracles of God. Upon
“ the genuine principles of the Protestant reformation...... he
“has to establish this matn foundation of revealed religion.”
΄
n
“
“-
n
΄ι
n
nn
1 Compare with this Mr. Newman’s observations in his‘Lectures, pp. 291, 2.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. PER
“ But, [as he justly adds, giving a caution which should never
“ be kept out of sight in this matter,] if, in resisting the claims
“ of these opponents, he hastily conclude, that all the oracles
“‘ which they reverence are to be despised as nothing worth, he
“ will soon find himself on untenable ground. To deny to them
“ that secondary rank to which they are entitled, and to reject
“them even as auxiliaries in the interpretation of Scripture,
“ must be injurious to the truth itself.’ (pp. 98—100.) But
at the same time how completely he discards the idea of abso-.
lute authority being vested anywhere but in the Scriptures
appears from the following remarks :—“ In this respect private
“ judgment stands upon a similar footing with Church-authority.
“ Both must submit to the word of God, and neither may
“ assume aright over the other, contrary to that word. The
“ individual may not conform to the Church in opposition to
“ Scripture ; the Church may not allow the departure of her
“members from what Scripture declares to be necessary to
“ salvation. As the obedience required on the one hand is con-
ditional, so is the right conferred on the other. Both are
“ limited by the obedience due to the Supreme Power; both are
equally subject to Him who ‘ruleth over all.’ The respon-
“ sibility, therefore, on either side is great.” (p. 1110} And
in a note on this passage he adds, “ This is certainly a point of
“ great nicety and of difficult adjustment. Ir 17 RE AsKED,
“WHAT IS TO BE DONE WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL THINKS THE
DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH EVIDENTLY UNSCRIPTURAL IN
“ ESSENTIAL POINTS, AND THE CHURCH FORBIDS HIM TO
* DEPART FROM IT,—WHETHER HE OUGHT NOT IN THAT CASE
“79 DEPART FROM IT?—THE ANSWER MUST SURELY BE IN
“ THE AFFIRMATIVE.” (p. 34].)!
The following passage seems peculiarly full and explicit, and
clearly to make Scripture the only source of a// religious truth.
“The expressions used by the sacred writers, whether of the
“ Old or New Testament, in speaking of the word of God, evi-
“ dently go to the extent of asserting its perfection in itself, and
“its sufficiency for those on whom it was bestowed. The ap-
1 The reader may compare with this the observations of Mr. Newman on this
subject in his Lect. &., pp. 160 and 320,
518 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
“ peal to it also, whenever such appeal is made either by our
““ Lord or his Apostles, is no less clearly grounded on the sup-
position that it was sufficient for the conviction and satisfac-
“tion of the persons whom they addressed. The Old Testa-
** ment was sufficient to bring the Jews to the knowledge of the
“ Messiah when he should appear, and to the reception of the
“ Gospel when it should be promulgated to them. The Jews
* whom our Lord conversed with are considered on this ground
“as without excuse. The persons to whom the Apostles ad-
“ dressed their discourses or writings are also pressed by them
“ with arguments drawn from the Scriptures then extant, which
are always appealed to as fully sufficient to enable them to
“ judge of the reasoning set before them. What writings of
* the New Testament, whether Gospels or Epistles, might be in
“ circulation among the primitive Christians at the time when
“ these references to Scripture were made, it is not material to
* inquire. Their gradual increase arose out of the immediate
* exigences of the Church; and so long as the Evangelists and
* Apostles lived, accessions were made to the written word ;
* and by the good providence of God so many of them as might
“be necessary for the edification of the Church in after times,
“ have been preserved and transmitted from generation to gene-
“yation. The argument therefore stands thus: that if the
“ fewer portions of Holy Writ then extant; if the Old Testa-
“ ment alone, or accompanied with only certain portions of the
“« New, were spoken of by the inspired preachers of that day as
“ full, perfect, and sufficient for general edification, we may with
* unhesitating confidence affirm the same, κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, of the
“ entire collection as it now exists. Nay, we may no less con-
“ fidently argue, that, since no evidence is adduced, nor even
“ pretended, that there are any other books now extant, stamped
“ with the same seal of Divine authority, we have, in the very
“ cessation of these extraordinary means of instruction, an in-
“ dubitable token of the Divine purpose in this respect. We
“ learn from it that God in his infinite wisdom designed these
“to be a complete, entire, and sufficient revelation of his will, with-
“ out any ulterior communications of a similar kind. Nothing
“can invalidate this conclusion but clear evidence from Scrip-
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 519
>
“ ture itself, that unwritten traditions were afterwards to be ad-
“ mitted as supplementary to the Sacred Writings, and to be placed
“‘ upon the same level with them in point of authority.” (pp.
321, 2.)
And that he intended to include in these remarks points of
practice as well as of faith, is sufficiently evident, by the follow-
ing extract he has given from De Moor, as illustrative of his
meaning. ‘ Tradit Scriptura res Religionis perfecte et suffi-
“ cienter. Bellarminus, lib. iv. De Verbo Dei, cap. 4. probare
“ satagit, Quod Scripture non omnia fa contineant ut suffi-
““ ciant ipse sine alia traditione, vide tom. i. Controy. col. 211.
“« Nos ex adverso tenemus Scripture perfectionem, per quam illa
“ sola sit regula totalis et adequata fidei ef morum.” (p. 319.;
and see a similar extract from Dr. Waterland, p. 309.)
On the subject of the fourth position we have the following
testimony.
«<The faith once delivered to the saints’ was committed to
“ writing by the Sacred Penmen, that we might believe ‘ through
“ their word. Nothing, therefore, is now necessary, but to bring
** to their elucidation the best human attainments, moral and intel-
“ lectual, together with those ordinary aids of the Holy Spirit
“ which the great author and finisher of our faith has promised to
“ them who sincerely seek the truth.” (pp. 91, 2. ed. 1815.)
Speaking of the erroneous pretensions to authoritative inter-
pretation set up on behalf of Tradition, human reason, and pri-
vate illumination, he says,;—“ They all proceed on a supposition
“that there is some imperfection or insufficiency in the Scrip-
“ tures, which is to be supplied by one or other of these infal-
“lible remedies. In these false conceptions of the subject each
“is equally reprehensible. Each confounds what ought to be
“ carefully distinguished, the obscurity of the doctrines revealed in
“ Scripture with the obscurity of Scripture itself; as if a doctrine
“ might not be laid down in a clear and distinct manner, although
“it be in itself above the full comprehension of the human
* faculties. Hach is also equally defective in the remedy it
*‘ proposes. For it is not oral tradition nor human infallibility,
“ if such were to be found, nor the utmost perfection of human
* yeason, nor such illuminations as enthusiasts rely upon, that
520 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH GF ENGLAND
A
“can throw more light upon the doctrines than the Serip-
“ tures have already shed upon them. The same insurmountable
harriers betwixt Divine and human knowledge will still re-
“main, and by faith alone will the doctrines be received.”
(p. 95.) “A reputed saying of rabbinical writers, that ‘there
“ is no difficulty in their Law of which the Law itself does not
“ offord a solution,’ is applicable to the Scriptures in general,
“ both of the Old and New Testament.” (pp. 190 1.) And
hence he presses upon the reader the importance of interpreting
Scripture by itself. “Difficulties,” he says, “are to be removed
in the first place bythe help of Scripture itself.” (p. 191. See
the whole of Sermon 6, pp. 177 et seq.)
“ The Bible, though often profound and mysterious in its
“ subject, does for the most part propose its truths in terms
“ adapted to general apprehension.” (p. 218.)
Speaking of the doctrines of the unity of the Godhead, the
co-existence and co-equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with
the Father, and the union of the divine and human nature in
the person of our Lord, he says,—“ To a plain unprejudiced
“ reader they are all indeed so evidently contained in Scripture,
“ that were they not accompanied with acknowledged difficulties
“in reconciling them with each other, they would probably be
“ universally received.” (p. 210.) And instead of endeavouring
to account for the prevalence of heresies and divisions in doc-
trine on fundamental points, from any obscurity in the word
of God respecting them, he traces them at once to their true
cause. The main source,” he says, “ of all contentions respecting
“ the sense of Scripture on points of fundamental importance, may
“<< be traced to a reluctance, on one side or the other, to renounce
*« prepossessions militating against an entire reception of the truth.
“ Men are led by partiality to their own opinions, or undue
« deference to those of others, not only to irreconcileable dis-
* sensions among themselves, but eventually to a departure from
“ the plain and obvious meaning of the word of God.” (p. 49.)
And finally he quotes, as illustrative of his views, the follow-
ing, among other, passages.
From Bandinel’s Bampton Lectures as follows,—* The doc-
“ trines of Christianity are laid down in Scripture with a plain- -
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 521
“ ness and perspicuity sufficient and satisfactory to every well-dis-
“ posed mind.” (p. 300.)
From Glassii Philo]. Sacr. the following,—‘* Omnis fidet arti-
“ culus in Scripturis alicubt ex professo propriis et perspicuis ver-
“ bis est expositus, que illius articuli propria quasi sedes et
* domicilium est. Nihil est obscure dictum in Scripturis quod
“ spectet ad fidem vel mores, quod non planissime dictum sit in
* alus locis.” (p. 396.) The ttalics are the bishop’s.
And from Dr. Waterland he remarks, that “ most of the
“ abuses with regard to the interpreting of Scripture, when
“ traced up to their fountain-head, will appear to have been
“ owing to this, that some will fancy the plain and obvious sense
* unreasonable or absurd, when it really is not; and will there-
“ upon obtrude their own surmises, conjectures, and prejudices,
“ upon the word of God.” (p. 404.)
On the subject of the fifth position we have the following
testimony ;— Ἢ
“ The Canon of Scripture was determined by the Church
“ upon evidence of its genuineness and authenticity; and to
“ this the Church bears witness. The truth of Scripture rests on
“ other grounds ; on the ‘ witness of God’ as well as ‘ the witness
[6 of men.’ ” (pp. 75, 6.)
I conclude the whole with the following decisive testimony
of this last witness.
“THE DEFERENCE WHICH THE FaTHERS ALWAYS PAID TO
“ pHe Hory Scriptures as THE SOLE AUTHORITATIVE
“RULE OF FAITH, Is surricienrt To GUIDE US IN THE
‘ DEFERENCE WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE ADMITTED TO BE DUE
‘ TO THEMSELVES.” (p. 334.)
Such, then, are the sentiments of the principal divines to
whom Mr. Keble has referred as supporting his views of Tradi-
tion ; sentiments expressed in many cases, as we have seen, in
the very works from which Mr. Keble has taken his extracts.
Mr. Newman is in precisely the same situation with Mr.
Keble in this respect. Having interspersed in his Lectures
several quotations from Taylor, Stillingfleet, Waterland, and
Van Mildert, and applicd them to the support of his views, he
522 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND
draws the conclusion, that his “ view of Catholic Tradition” is
*‘ received from and maintained by our great divines,” and very
coolly adds, “ If it could be proved contrary to anything they
“ have elsewhere maintained, this would be to accuse them of
inconsistency, which I leave to our enemies to do.” (p. 318.)
Now if, as this sentence seems to intimate, Mr. Newman was
conscious that they had elsewhere maintained views contrary
to his, it would not only have been but fair in him to have stated
as much, but have afforded sufficient ground for doubt whether
he had not misinterpreted their views in the passages he has
quoted. Their statements, when taken as a whole, are perfectly
self-consistent ; and I am not at all fearful of being reckoned
their enemy, for having shown them to be opponents of the
system under review.
Am I, then, speaking too strongly when I say, that the Trac-
tators, instead of boasting any longer of the support to be found
for their system in the works of our most learned and able
divines, are bound to explain how it is that they have been so
far misled as ever to have made such a claim ? I am far from
asserting that there has been any intentional misrepresentation
of the views of those quoted ; much allowance is to be made for
a prejudiced eye and imperfect information ; but that they have
been misrepresented is, I suppose, placed beyond contradiction,
by the extracts which have just been given. In whatever way,
then, we may be enabled to account for it, certain it is that
truth has been sacrificed, and the authority of great names pleaded
in behalf of a system in no respect entitled to such protection.
Nor is it possible to acquit those who had the means of informa-
tion open to them, of culpable neglect in not ascertaining the
real state of the case, in a matter of such importance, before they
made use of the names of our most learned and esteemed divines
as supporters of doctrines which they have EXPRESSLY REPU-
DIATED.
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
Thus terminated this chapter in the first edition of this work.
And I think it can hardly be necessary, or perhaps desirable, to
add extracts from other divines of our Church. Those I have
ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 523
selected are among the witnesses chosen by the Tractators them-
selves as representatives of our Church, and the extracts I have
given from them on all the points of the case, not only show
their views respecting the matters in dispute, but will enable the
reader to understand the meaning of many other passages quoted
from other divines of our Church by the Tractators as maintain-
ing their system. Great respect may be expressed for Antiquity,
all possible willmgness may be manifested to receive with
veneration any traditions (if there are any) that can be proved
to be Apostolical, strong language may be used as to the claims
of the primitive Creeds, and the value of doctrines and interpre-
tations supported by a large consent of the best and holiest of
the early Fathers, the most perfect readiness may be expressed
to meet the Romanists on the ground of Patristical Tradition as
to their additions to the faith—but at the same time such views
as those of the Tractators on the subject be utterly repudiated
by the very same writers. It is a totally different thing to make
such a use of Antiquity as I have supposed, and to deduce from
it an imaginary “ Catholic Consent” to be set up as a divine
informant and part of the Rule of faith. The great question
is as to the authority over the conscience of anything that
comes to us as Ecclesiastical Tradition. And on this question
our Church, and all her greatest divines, clearly maintain the
negative.
But I cannot conclude without callmg the reader’s attention
to the very remarkable reply to this chapter given in the Trac-
tarian Review of the first edition of this work, to which I have
already adverted.!
The Reviewer observes, respecting the above “Catena of
English divines,” that “as on the one hand it must be confessed,
“that no general principle can be given, as in the case of the
“ Fathers, to harmonize and explain their statements; so, on
“ the other hand, were the author even to prove, (to put for ar-
“ oument’s sake an extreme and most extravagant hypothesis,)
“that all our standard writers since the Reformation were of
“ his way of thinking, this would still be zrrelevant as regards
1 Brit. Crit. for July 1842. vol. 32.
524 DOCTRINE OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC.
“ the Oxford opinions, not merely to the question of their truth,
“but even of their consistency with the Formularies we have
“ subscribed: we are in no way called, then, to discuss the
subject.” (pp. 104, 5.)
Such is the sole reply given to the evidence produced in the
preceding chapter as to the complete misrepresentation of the
views of our great divines by the leaders of his party !
CHAPTER XII.
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE WHOLE SUBJECT.
Berore I conclude this work, there are a few general remarks
on the whole subject which I am anxious to bring under the
consideration of the reader. And I shall class them under the
three following heads :—
I, The way in which the proofs, given in the preceding
chapters, of the groundlessness of the Tractarian system
of “ Church-Tradition” and ‘ Catholic Consent?’ have
been met.
II. The erroneous views which appear to have led the
minds of the Tractators towards the system they have
adopted.
III. The dangerous results which flow from the Tractarian
doctrine on the Rule of faith, beyond the errors more
immediately involved in it.
I would notice,
I. The way in which the proofs, given in the preceding
chapters, of the groundlessness of the Tractarian system of
“ Church-Tradition” and “ Catholic Consent” have been met.
It is an important feature in the controversy that has been
the subject of these volumes, that no attempt has been made to
prove the truth of the doctrine we have been opposing, by any
examination of those records of Antiquity to which so con-
fident au appeal was made in its support. In fact, it must have
struck the most cursory reader of the works published by the
Tractarian party in our Church, that while claims were made of
the loftiest kind to the support of Antiquity, and terms of large
significance freely and abundantly used, the evidence adduced
in proof of the assertions made was of the most vague, meagre,
and scanty kind. And when the witness really borne on the
526 GENERAL REMARKS ON
subject by the records of Antiquity is placed before the public,
scarcely an attempt is made, by the Tractators or their adherents,
to vindicate their original position by a counter investigation of
those documents. On the contrary, the result of the controversy
has been, that in the case of our most distinguished opponent,
Mr. Newman, the cause of Tradition, as originally advocated by
him with such unbounded confidence, has been abandoned
as hopeless, and resort has been had to the theory of de-
velopment; and in the case of others, a retreat has been
sought in the position, that no private individual can expect to
find the right faith for jimself in Tradition any more than in
Scripture, but must believe what “ the Church” tells him that
Tradition delivers. That such a position was reserved as a place
of refuge in case of being driven from the more eligible and
attractive ground originally maintained, I pointed out in the
first edition of this work.! And therefore I am not surprised
at such a result. But there cannot be a stronger proof of the
untenableness of the claims made for what is called “ Catholic
Consent.”
According then to the doctrine with which our investigation
of the remains of the early Church has been met, whatever may
be the results of an examination made by individuals ito the
sources from which Tradition is said to be derived, the dictum of
what is called “the Church” overrules every conclusion to which
they may have come, and authoritatively settles what they are
to believe to have been delivered by Catholic Consent from the
beginning.
Here, again, do our opponents follow closely the footsteps of
the Church of Rome. For it is in this way that the Romanists
endeavour to baffle Protestants who by an argumentum ad
hominem meet them on their own ground, and offer to appeal to
Antiquity. We are immediately told, that the Church alone can
decide what Tradition says, as well as what Scripture says.
In answer to a supposed question, as to the “ means that may
enable us altogether with certainty to arrive at the Apostolic
and Divine traditions,’ Dr. Trevern, bishop of Strasbourg,
replies thus,—“ Call to mind, Sir, what we have said upon the
1 See above, vol. i. p. 46.
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 527
“ Holy Scripture: we have clearly discovered, that, seeing the
“* ignorance and incapacity of some, and the pride and infatua-
“tion of others, the authority of an interpreter, of an infallible
“judge, was absolutely necessary to make known, and cause to
“be uniformly adopted, the dogmas contained in Scripture.
* We must say as much, and with still better right, for Tradition.
““ The same judge, the same interpreter, that unfolds to us the
““ sense of the Divine books, manifests to us also that of Tradi-
“tion. Now this judge, this interpreter, I must tell you here
“ again, is the teaching body of the Church, the bishops united
‘in the same opinion, at least in a great majority. .... They
* alone have the right to teach what is revealed, to declare what
“is in the written or unwritten word.” 1
And the course of the controversy with our opponents has
taken precisely the same direction as did the controversy of the
Protestants with the Romanists at the time of the Reformation.
For a long time the Romanists loudly boasted of Antiquity as
in their favor, and professed themselves willing to rest their
cause on the witness of Tradition even as submitted to the judg-
ment of all impartial men; but when the real testimony of
Antiquity had been placed before the world, they soon found it
as necessary to give “ the Church” the power of deciding what
““ Tradition” testified, as of determining what Scripture testified.
And hence it was that, though originally an appeal to Scripture
except as interpreted by Tradition was hardly allowed, before
long their controversialists often made their appeal to Scripture
as much as Antiquity ; for as both were against them, it often
answered their purpose better to take the more plausible ground
of appealing to that to which their opponents appealed. And
however hard pressed they might be in the argument, a sure
refuge remained to them in an appeal to the interpretation of
“ the Church.” )
Now, to follow our opponents into this new field of argument,
would require a distinct work to do it justice. I shall only
therefore point out a few of the difficulties with which they have
to deal. And first they have to point out to us with infallible
1 TrEVERN'S Amicable discussion on the Church of England and the Reforma-
tion. Translated by Richmond. 1828. vol. i. pp. 193, 4.
528 GENERAL REMARKS ON
certainty who form “the Church ;” and then, how the voice of
that Church is to be heard. And further, whomsoever they
make the depositaries of that voice, they have to show, that such
depositaries are infallibly sure to deliver the truth. And a still
harder task will remain, to show how “ the Church,” if it judges
from the records of Antiquity, (which seem to be put forward as
the documents of appeal) can obtain from them evidence which
individuals cannot obtain. And if we suppose this difficulty
surmounted by the aid of Divine guidance, the hardest part of
the task is yet to be mastered, namely, to make Catholic Con-
sent out of conflicting or divergent testimonies. This seems to
me beyond the power eyen of a divinely-directed Church.
Not that the Church of Rome finds any difficulty in the
matter. For while it binds all its doctors to interpret Scrip-
ture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers,
and at the same time tells us, (if at least the learned Benedictine
Editors of Ambrose are to be taken as fit exponents of its views)
that “ it may appear almost incredible how uncertain and incon-
“ sistent the holy Fathers, from the very times of the Apostles
“ to the Pontificate of Gregory XI. and the Council of Florence,
“that is, for almost the whole of fourteen centuries, were” on
the doctrine of the intermediate state of souls, and that this
“ generally happens in questions of this kind before they are decided
“ by the Church,”’—a contrariety which arose “ from the different
“ideas which the reading of the Holy Scriptures supplied to
“ those holy men,”!—yet it has without hesitation pronounced
what is the doctrme which Church-Tradition and Catholic
Consent from the beginning has delivered on the subject :—a
miracle equal to any of those to which it lays claim.
It is not a matter for surprise, therefore, that when the Trac-
tators had thus taken refuge in the power of the Church to
solve all difficulties, and judge infallibly in all controversies,
and silence all doubts, many of them should have felt, that our
Church was no longer a suitable place for them, and gone over
to the Church of Rome. Rather is it a matter for surprise, that
any who take a similar view of the office and authority of “ the
1 See above, vol. i. pp. 282, 283.
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 529
Church” should be able to reconcile it with a conscientious
adherence to the principles of the Church of England.
I pass on to the second point on which I proposed to offer a
few remarks, namely—
II. The erroneous views which appear to have led the minds
of the Tractators towards the system they have adopted.
Among the chief of these I believe to be,
(1) A groundless and mistaken view as to the nature of the
present Dispensation and the Christian Church.
There is in many a strong craving after a visible unity in the
whole external Church of Christ to be effected by some earthly
instrumentality. A notion of the importance of such unity is so
strongly impressed upon their minds, that it would appear to
them as if something was wanting in the privileges granted by
our Lord to his followers, if this was not in some way provided
for. One of the commonest arguments adduced against the
Protestant doctrine on the subject we have been discussing, and
one that has great effect with many minds, is,—How, on such a
system, can you prevent different doctrines prevailmg in the
Church, even on fundamental points? What a state of confu-
sion must be the result of such a system! Surely our Lord
never intended that his Church should present to the world
such a scene as must be the inevitable result of its beimg left
in such a position as this view contemplates. And besides,
He himself speaks of his Church as if it was to be one, all its
members partaking of his Spirit and united in the bonds of
spiritual communion.
However great, therefore, may be the difficulties with which
every scheme for providing such an instrumentality may be
encompassed, those difficulties seem to them to be at any rate
less than those attaching to the supposition that the Church
should be left altogether without it ; and therefore ordinarily they
choose the scheme to which circumstances lead them. Some,
consequently, resort to the Tractarian doctrine of Tradition, others
to the Romish doctrine of the Papal Supremacy, and others to
other schemes devised by human ingenuity to meet the supposed
want of some infallible earthly Judge of controversies beyond
Holy Scripture.
VOL. II. M M
530 GENERAL REMARKS ON
Now this notion, that the Church of Christ can hardly have
been left without some earthly instrumentality of this kind,
appears to me to be thoroughly groundless; nay, contrary to
God’s ordinary methods of dealing with mankind, and certainly
contrary to the nature of the Dispensation under which we are
_ living. The statements of our blessed Lord in the Gospel, far
from leading me to such an expectation, carry me to a totally
different view. They appear to me to foreshadow a visible
Church, in which there would be the greatest possible con-
trariety of doctrine and sentiment and conduct. There are te
be in it, besides the wheat sown by himself, tares sown by the
wicked one. There are to be in it those of whom He will say
hereafter, “I never knew you.” In short, the parables in which
he describes the nature of his visible Church clearly show us,
that its members will be as different as the children of the king-
dom and the children of the wicked one. And this applies to its
ministers as much as to others. And under such circumstances
purity of doctrine is not the necessary attendant upon the largest
number, or those of the highest position and authority in the
Church. And consequently ministers may have the true per-
sonal succession and yet be but deceivers.
But amongst them are his own flock, owning him in sincerity
and truth as their Lord, washed from their sins in his blood and
sanctified by his Spirit, and through that Spirit united to Him
and holding communion with Him as their Head; and these
are his true Church. And all these are united in the bonds of
a spiritual communion through that grace which all receive from
their Divine Head, and by which the whole body is supported
and grows. Scattered they may be throughout all lands,
alienated in a measure here from each other by a difference of
external circumstances of language and customs, and even by
variety of views and diversity of ecclesiastical discipline ; for if
they were tied to the personal ministerial succession, they might
in some times and places be led into Arian or other vital errors ;
but all one in Christ as partakers of his lifegiving influences, the
erace of the same Divine Spirit. They are emphatically one body,
as being all united by the influences of one Spirit to one Head.
And the differences which may separate them from united action
here no more militate against the reality of that union than diffe-
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 531
rences among brethren prevent their being all members of one
family.
But this unity is produced by no earthly instrumentality. It
is not the result of truth being forced upon unwilling minds by
Church-Tradition, or Councils, or Popes. We do not find our
Lord himself, when upon earth, acting upon this principle. He
speaks the word of life, and warns his hearers that that word
will judge them at the last day. But he does not speak so as
to force truth on hearts corrupt and alienated from him. The
mocking Jews urged, that if he would manifest the possession of
Divine power and come down from the cross, they would believe
him. * But it is not thus that He works under the present Dis-
pensation. He speaks to the hearts of men so as to afford suffi-
cient evidence of his nature and doctrine and work, to those
who do not shut their eyes to the light so vouchsafed to them.
But there, as it respects mankind in general, he leaves the reve-
lation given them. On many occasions he evidently spoke, inten-
tionally, so that the humble willing mind might see clearly the
heavenly doctrine he was inculeating, while a proud or Pharisaic
or worldly-minded spirit might without difficulty misapprehend
his word, and turn it to a different purpose. And thus it is
that even to this day those statements of the Old Testament that
have been so clearly fulfilled in the person and work of Christ,
are to the Jews a sealed book, because “the veil is upon their
hearts.” But his word will not the less act to the condemnation
of those influenced by such a spirit at the last day. But to that
day he leaves it.
Now the ministers of Christ are his ambassadors. They are
to speak his word. And his word is the instrument of salvation
where he pleases to the souls of men. An earthly infallible
judge of controversies to pronounce with authority upon all the
doubts and all the misinterpretations which the perverse minds
of men may raise in connexion with it, is not wanted for any
purpose which our Lord has to perform. It may be very advan-
tageous for the glorification of his ministers and the establish-
ment of their authority over the minds of men. But it is abso-
lutely useless for the accomplishment of Christ’s work upon the
souls of mankind. It would, in fact, interfere with his method of
M M 2
5382 GENERAL REMARKS ON
action. It would frustrate his designs. It is not by such
agency that our Lord works. If the clear revelations of Divine
truth made to us in Holy Scripture are perverted or explained
away, an attempt to force belief by some other instrumentality
is not in accordance with our Lord’s own mode of teaching, and
will issue either in a forced external and uninfluential adoption
of a mere theory, or in hypocrisy ; not in winning souls to Christ,
or adding to the Church such as will be saved. The reason why
men do not receive the truths revealed in the Holy Scriptures, is
not from obscurity in the revelation of them, but from their own
disinclination or prejudices. And this impediment no Church
on earth canremove. And belief produced by the mere force of
authority is not that which our Lord seeks.
An infallible earthly Judge of controversies, therefore, to force
unity upon all the mere nominal adherents to the Christian
faith, is one of the last things which our Lord’s own teaching
would lead us to expect. And all the variety and dissonance of
doctrine professedly deduced by human ingenuity or perverse-
ness from his word form one of those fests to which the faith of his
followers is exposed, and by which their sincere and simple~
hearted reception of his word is tried. And it is just such a
test as is suitable to the Gospel Dispensation, the peculiar spirit
of which is, to take off the mind from confidence in anything
human and earthly, and to cause it to lean upon and put its
whole trust and confidence in God alone, and in him imme-
diately, without any human interposing medium.
The authority of great names, the weight of learning, the
influence of esteemed interpreters, may appear adverse to the
sense adopted. But on the other side, with smaller external
evidence in its support, there is the internal conviction that such
is the meaning of God’s word, wrought perhaps by the work of
the Spirit in the heart. The choice, then, is between man’s
doctrine and God’s doctrine. And the selection is the test of
true and earnest faith.
To urge against this view the mistakes to which the exercise
of private judgment will lead, and the difficulties and perplexities
that may thus ensue in the Church, on account of the folly and
perverseness of human nature, and its want of spiritual pereep-
tion, is only to use as an argument against it a fact which it
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 533
fully recognizes and enforces. No one doubts, that such mis-
takes and misinterpretations will be made, and such difficulties
arise. The spiritual mind only discerns spiritual things. The
natural man knoweth not the things of the Spirit of God ; neither
can he know them, because they are only spiritually discerned.
And these misinterpretations and difficulties are the tests of
genuine faith. Man is thus kept in direct dependence upon God
himself, and his humility, patience, and obedience tried. And
the notion that “the Church ” is to make man know the truth, and
is authorized to effect unity of sentiment in all the professed
followers of Christ by an, infallible interpretation of his word,
and an authoritative judgment pronounced in his name upon
every misinterpretation, is contradicted as much by experience as
by Scripture. It is indeed the duty of Christ’s true followers,
and especially of those bearing the- ministerial office in his
Church, to bear testimony to the truth, and vindicate Christ’s
word from the misinterpretations affixed to it, and thus aid in
building up the faith of his followers. And it is the duty of
each local Church to preserve its own communion free from the
infection of what it esteems fundamental error. But the testi-
mony of man is fallible. And the final judgment of all rests
with our Lord himself at the last day. And “the word that he
has spoken” by himself and his Apostles, however it may be
charged by man, for his own purposes, with obscurity, will be
that by which we shall be judged at that day. (John xu. 48.)
Another source of Tractarian error 15,
(2) An incorrect view of the nature of the work of the Holy
Spirit, ignoring that direct and immediate Spiritual guidance
of which every true believer is the subject.
* Allthy children shall be taught of God,” is one great pro-
mise annexed to the New Testament Dispensation. And what
can be more clear from the records of the Gospel, than that our
Lord acts directly, through his Spirit, upon the heart of each
individual member of his Church, and that consequently each
is responsible to Him for his views and conduct. They are not
left to the authoritative guidance of any human instrumentality.
They possess Divine guidance. They are individually “ the
temples of the living God,” as recipients of the influences of his
Spirit. “The Spirit is given fo every man to profit withal.”
534 GENERAL REMARKS ON
And it is by this Spirit that the word of Christ is impressed
upon the heart with power, and its heavenly doctrme brought
home to the mind. By that Spirit the veil that is upon the
heart is removed, (2 Cor. iii. 15) and the true doctrine of the
Gospel is clearly seen and its power felt. Every true Christian
has had a heavenly teacher to imstruct him.
The reader who has perused the extracts given above, from the
Fathers and the divines of our own Church, will have seen that
this truth is distinctly and expressively recognized by them.
The direct illapse of the Holy Spirit upon the minds of imdivi-
duals to give them an insight into the meaning of Holy Scrip-
ture is maintained by them as a truth of the highest moment,
and referred to as an unquestionable fact. The language of
Theodoret and others will at once recur to the reader. Among
our own divines, let us observe the language even of Archbishop
Laud, than which nothing can be plainer. In reading the Scrip-
tures, he says, “ we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclin-
ing our hearts.” Or of another of our opponents’ own witnesses,
Dr. Jackson, who tells us, that the Holy Spirit “ conveys the
“ true sense and meaning of saving truth already taught, mmme-
“ diately to the hearts of all such, in every nation, as are not for
“ their sin judged unworthy of his society.”?
Now this truth would appear to be absolutely ignored by the
Tractators and their adherents. Nay, the language respecting
it of one of the party when reviewing the former edition of this
work, in which I had briefly noticed their preetermission of it,
is that of positive scorn.
The apology which this writer makes for the almost total
absence of any allusion to the work of the Holy Spirit, is of the
following singular kind. First, that “‘ when discussions are pro-
“ ceeding on the Rule of faith, one would think it might be an
“ understood thing, that the Oxford writers are really discussing
“ the question, what is the instrument through which the Holy
“ Spirit works conviction?””—and secondly, that “the very foun-
“ dation of faith, in the Oxford system, is that it flows from
“ fove, and love, as all know, is in Scripture the one special
“ symbol and effect of the presence of the Holy Spirit.”? The
1 See above, vol. ii. p. 40, and p. 425 of this volume.
2 Brit. Crit. for July 1842. p. 67.
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 535
second point in this apology the reader will not expect me to
trouble him with noticing. ΤῸ the former I reply, that even if
_ What the Reviewer desires is “ understood,” the case is not
altered. What we want is an acknowledgment of the direct
operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, and this we do not
find, but instead of it all is attributed to the teaching of “ Tra-
dition” and “the Church.”’?!
Proceeding to notice the views of “ Protestants,” he says,
that “there are two versions of the Protestant principle as dis-
tinct from each other as both from the true Catholic statement,”
and he charges me with “ sliding from one to the other” as may
be convenient.? The one, he says, is, “ That the meaning of the
“« New Testament is to be obtained, as that of any other Greek
“ book on a religious subject ; by the unlearned, through the
“ prima facie bearing of the translation; by the learned, who
“‘ may command greater accuracy, through critical exegesis and
careful collation of texts. The other is the legitimate pro-
“ nerty, we believe, of the Quakers, though, like fragments of
“ most other schemes of doctrine, it has found its way in sub-
“ stance into the miscellaneous and incongruous assortment of
“ floating notions, which make up the religion at present most
“ extensively popular within the English Establishment. In the
“ form which it assumes among ourselves, it is this, that by a
1 T ought perhaps to notice here a criticism of the Reviewer’s (p. 67) upon my
remark that interpreters have by study &c. “and doubtless, in many cases, by the
guidance of the Spirit of God, elucidated the declarations of Scripture.” He in-
timates, that those whom he is defending would have said, that if men “ eluci-
date the declarations of Scripture,” they “ do so always by the guidance of the
Spirit.’ The Reviewer must allow me still to prefer my own phrase, as I can quite
conceive an able writer occasionally elucidating the declarations of Scripture with-
out an atom of divine grace in his heart.
2 This charge arises from my having advocated the use of those ordinary means
by which we attain the true sense of an antient author in our endeavours to as-
certain the right interpretation of the Scriptures, and at the same time maintained
the necessity of Spiritual influence effectively to teach a man the Spiritual truths
contained in the Holy Scriptures. But I need not surely spend many words in
proving that the two are quite reconcileable with each other. The use of those
means is ὦ duty, and is in itself capable of manifesting to a great extent even the
more hidden truths of Scripture, and it is on account principally of our reluctance
to embrace the truth that the work of the Spirit is needed to open and unfold the
truth to the mind with a divine power that influences the will and affections no
longer to resist its reception; and it is in the humble use of means that we may
more especially hope to meet with that Spiritual guidance and illumination.
536 GENERAL REMARKS ON
* special promise the study of the English version of the Bible
“is, as if a Sacrament, by means of which, with no perceptible
“ relation of cause and effect, the Spirit guides the individual into
“« knowledge of Christian truth.”
The former view the Reviewer thinks, though untenable, yet
“has nothing in it whatever to offend either the conscience or
“ the reason of the religious inquirer,” but the latter is “ morally
“rash to the very verge of profaneness, and intellectually shallow
“ to the very verge of imbecility.” (pp. 67, 68.)
Such is his estimate of the notion that in the perusal of the
English Bible the Spirit may guide the individual into know-
ledge of Christian truth! To stop to point out the entire
contrariety of his views to those of the standard divines of our
Church, whom 1 have quoted above, would be unnecessary, as
the extracts I have given will fully suffice for that purpose.
Indeed his words imply a lurking consciousness that the doc-
trine he is opposing has good support within what he sarcasti-
cally calls “ the English Establishment ;” and his identification
of it with the Quaker doctrine is, I hope, to be attributed to no
worse cause than want of acquaintance with the subject.
More proof can hardly, I think, be required, that I am doing
no injustice to my opponents, when I speak of it as a characteristic
of their system, that the doctrine of the direct operation of the
Holy Spirit upon the heart is almost ignored, for it is here
trampled upon. And the great principle which usurps its place is
very distinctly enunciated in few words in the immediate context,
where it is stated to be a doctrine “ which any one, except for
“a bad education, would gather for himself from the Book of
“ Acts, when he cbserves the functions of the Apostles, and the
“ regular system under which God is there represented to act,
“as making them His instruments in the dispensation of
“ Gospel blessings,” and it is this,—“that Gop UNDER THE
“ GosPEL HAS INTERPOSED HUMAN MEDIA BETWEEN HIS GRACE
“AND THE SOUL.” (p. 70.) In this brief statement we see
the groundwork and foundation of the Tractarian and Romish
systems. The “ priesthood” of the Apostolic Succession are
the depositaries and channels of Divine grace to mankind, and
upon them men are to depend for the bestowal of it. The no-
tion of a direct intercommunion between Christ and the be-
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 537
lieving soul, through the Spirit, independently of ordinances
administered by the clergy, is almost resented as an indignity
put upon the Christian Ministry. And thus the clergy are
put in the place of Christ, and attention to external ordinances
ministered by them made the exclusive medium of all spiritual
life and grace. Our Lord is thus supposed to have given up
all direct agency in the case of the lay members of his Church,
and to act, with respect to them, only through the ministrations
of the clergy of the Apostolic Succession. Those ministrations
are the sole channels through which spiritual gifts are conveyed
to the souls of men. And the consequence (the coveted conse-
quence) is, that obedience and responsibility, so far as the great
body of the members of the Church of Christ are concerned, are
practically transferred from our Lord to his earthly ministers.
Internal convictions are nothing. The private judgment of the
individual is not to be listened to. We are not to suppose that
there can be such a thing as spiritual guidance given to an in-
dividual by the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit. Men are
responsible to our Lord for obeying the commands and believing
the doctrine delivered by those Apostolically ordained, and they
are responsible for that only. In a word, the work which our
Lord is now graciously carrying on from his heavenly throne by
his Spirit in the hearts of individuals is denied, and all his
earthly followers placed in abject dependence upon the clergy
of the Apostolical Succession for all spiritual gifts and blessings.
Among the views and feelings influencing the minds of the
Tractators, we must also, I think, add
(3) A strong prepossession in favor of doctrines and practices
which could not otherwise be maintained.
A writer of the party in the British Critic has thus plainly
revealed one of the leading causes for their pressing the authority
of Tradition ; namely, that “ on the establishment and mainte-
* nance of the true authority of Primitive Tradition depends in
** oreat measure the respect with which we shall regard tradi-
* tionary teaching in its later and less perfect forms. For though
“ absolute and real authority be claimed only for a few great af-
* firmative principles of doctrine,—the great landmarks of Church
“ teaching in all times,—yet besides these there are doctrines
“ and usages and expositions of Scripture, claiming reverence and
538 GENERAL REMARKS ON
“ respect in various degrees, in proportion to the various degrees in
“ which the voice of the Church has been pronounced respecting
“ them. Many of these are of extreme antiquity and prevalence ;
“ they pervade our belief and practice to such extent as to give them
“ almost the whole of their peculiar colour ; they furnish the rules
“ and principles of Scripture interpretation much further than
“* we can conceive, unless we examine the matter with more than
“ ordinary care; they blend and mingle so intimately with our
“ very faculties of Christian understanding, that we cannot, if
“ we would, regard Christian truth and doctrine without them, -
“ nor put ourselves im the situation of those who should endea-
“‘ vour to frame a system of doctrine and morals from the mere
“letter of the Christian Scriptures. They alone satisfy the
“ daily detail of Christian thoughts, doubts, duties, dangers and
“ conduct. Where Holy Scripture and Primitive Tradition fur-
“ nish only the outlines of truth and duty, this common law of
“ Christianity supplies the application of principles, directs the
“ endless variety of single cases, furnishes the full sufficient rule
“of minute belief and practice, regulates the particulars, the
“ Aristotelian τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα of all Christian life. And this sort
“ of Tradition witnessed and in great measure embodied in the
“ writings of past ages, is the peculiar possession of the living
“ Church. With its aid she rightly divides the word of God.
“ With its aid she instructs her Catechumens. With its aid she
** meets every new emergent case of difficulty in which her de-
“ cision is desired, and her authority deferred to. With it she
** teaches what she proves from Holy Scripture. She leaves it as
“a holy, and in its kind a mainly unwritten inheritance to those
“ that come after.” }
From this instructive passage we may see the extent to which
Tradition, when admitted, is to influence the doctrine and practice
of Christians, even in ‘‘ its later and less perfect forms,” and one
of the great objects for which it is wanted. It is foreseen that it
can be made the means of introducing a host of views and prac-
tices, otherwise destitute of any support to lean upon.
Other views and feelings that have evidently operated in the
same direction, might easily be added, to which however, as pro-
1 Brit. Crit. for April 1839. pp. 472, 3.
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 539
bably suggesting themselves to the mind of the reader, I will
not do more than briefly allude.t| Such are, for instance, the
natural predilection for resting upon that which is external and
visible, and gives a definite and particular solution of all our
questions, rather than upon that which is invisible and realized
only by faith—a visible rather than an invisible guide; and it
must be added, a misapprehension of the powers and privileges
belonging to the ministerial office, and a desire to exalt them
beyond their true limits. But to enter upon these and other
similar points would detain us too long. I shall therefore con-
tent myself with thus pointing the attention of the reader to them.
I proceed to notice,
III. The dangerous results which flow from the Tractarian
doctrine on the Rule of faith, beyond the errors more immedi-
ately involved in it.
In the case of members of our own communion the conse-
quences to which it leads in the endeavour to make it conform-
able with the declarations of our Church, are peculiarly painful.
So clear are the declarations of our Articles and Homilies and
the works of our early divines on the point, that the attempt to
explain them away and make them consistent with the Trac-
tarian hypothesis, is such as no impartial mind can contemplate
without deep regret. It was a task imposed upon our opponents
by what Mr. Newman once candidly called, “the necessities of
their position,” and a task which the subsequent career of a
large number of their body shows to have been one of which
the attempted fulfilment was wholly unsatisfactory to their own
minds. And the Tract published by one of their number, when
about to secede from our Church, entitled “The morality of
Tractarianism,” reveals the secret feelings excited in ingenuous
minds by the endeavour to reconcile the Tractarian system with
the plain doctrine of the Church of England as set forth in her
Formularies.
But it is not my object now to direct the attention of the
reader further to this point. I purpose only to make a few
remarks upon those consequences to which the adoption of the
Tractarian Rule of faith must necessarily and of itself lead.
ἘΠῚ have already noticed one in the first vol. of this work, p. 444.
540 GENERAL REMARKS ON
And I would notice as one of the first and chief,
(1) The undervaluation of Holy Scripture which it must in-
evitably tend to produce.
It is obvious that when the word of God is accused of obscu-
rity and insufficiency to teach the faith, and we are sent to Tradi-
tion or Catholic Consent as our teacher, and as that which can
alone show us what is the true meaning of Scripture, the Bible is
in fact superseded by a teacher whose voice it is of far greater
importance to us to hear, and which alone will suffice for every
purpose. And the general reading of Holy Scripture becomes a
practice of very questionable utility, because, as we are to believe
only in accordance with what Tradition or Catholic Consent
delivers to us as the meaning of Scripture, it seems to follow,
that it is the safest course for men in general not to peruse the
Scriptures, lest they should come to a different conclusion from
that which they are bound to believe to be its meaning. They
have got a safer teacher. And so far have the Tractators ad-
vanced to this conclusion, that they firmly maintain, that men
are not to go to the Scriptures to learn what is the truth, but
only to see there the testimonies pointed out to them in proof
of that doctrine which they have been taught by the Tradition
of the Church; which testimonies they are bound to believe do
prove the doctrine in support of which they are adduced.
The inevitable consequence of this must, undeniably, be, the
neglect of Holy Scripture. The pure, and unmixed, and in-
dubitable word of God is thus made to give place to a body of
teaching drawn from a mass of human testimonies and at best
coming to us through an innumerable succession of hands
spread throughout the past ages of the Church.
And thus—
(2) The mind is withdrawn from dependence upon God’s word
to the teaching of man.
Experience has fully shown what is the practical effect produced
by such doctrine as that which we’are here opposing. [0 is, to
throw the people into the hands of the clergy, to be moulded by
them according to their will. And this, indeed, seems to be the
object in view. They are put forward as the depositaries of that
Tradition by which the Word of God is to be interpreted, and by
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 541
which all questions of doctrine and practice in religion are to be
determined. And the necessary consequence is, that the people
look to them rather than to the word of God for instruction.
And all those results follow which flow from man being put
in God’s place, and a reliance on man’s word substituted for a
dependence on God’s. The blessing of God cannot be expected
to rest on such a system. The door is opened to error of every
kind. The foundation offered for faith to rest upon is insuffi-
cient; and by many that insufficiency is felt, and the mind
either harassed with doubts, or rendered cold, callous, and even
sceptical on the whole subject.
The great duty of the minister of Christ is, to direct attention
to the word of inspiration; to call off the mind from resting
upon any other foundation, including even his own testimony, and
to send it to the Holy Scriptures to ascertain the truth from
them, not only as a check upon human infirmity in teaching, but
because it is in the communing with God’s own word, that we
are more especially privileged to expect the presence of that
life-giving Spirit that alone impresses the truth upon the heart
with power. No doubt that word may be preached as well as
read. The truths of God’s word may be delivered to mankind
by the ministers of Christ as well as by the Holy Scriptures ;
and in either case that word is “quick and powerful,” and
“mighty through God to the pulling down of the strongholds of
sinand Satan” in the mind. But it is the word of God only
to which we can look for such results, and the only sure word
of inspiration is that which we possess in the Holy Scriptures ;
and in communing with that, we are certain of hearing God’s
own voice, and the unadulterated statements of Divine truth
made by those who spoke under the immediate guidance of the
Holy Spirit.
The warning given by our Lord respecting the “ Tradition ”
of his own day, is as applicable to our circumstances as it ever’
was to those of the Jews. A Divine origin was as much
pleaded for the traditions of the. Pharisees as it is urged now in
behalf of Tractarian and Romish traditions. But our Lord
invariably directs his hearers to the Scriptures of the Old Testa-
ment for a knowledge of the truth, and cautions them against
placing any reliance upon the traditions of their teachers; and
542 GENERAL REMARKS ON
even says respecting them, that the prophetic words of Isaiah
were thus fulfilled,—“In vain do they worship me, teaching
for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt. xv. 9.) : and
that they had made the word of God itself of none effect
through their traditions. (Matt. xv. 6.) The word itself was
perverted through a false gloss, and God’s precepts in it added to
and superseded by those of men.
And if we thus look to such an inferior source for a know-
ledge of the truth, and make it our authoritative infallible guide,
can we expect that the gift of the Holy Spirit as our Instructor
will be imparted to us, when we are thus seeking elsewhere for
that which it is his special and promised office to bestow? Do
we not then hereby incur,
(3) The danger of losing that Spiritual illumination of which
we so little feel our need?
We have already seen, what is the view entertained by the
Tractators, of the notion, that the Holy Spirit’s influences are
vouchsafed to individuals to aid them in fathoming the spiritual
meaning of the Holy Scriptures. And I need hardly say, that
this view is intimately connected with their system; that it
both leads to it and flows from it. Surely then it is not too
much to say, that in the case of one who thus slights the pro-
mised aid of that Holy Spirit, and looks in preference to human
testimony to instruct him in the knowledge of the truth, we can
hardly expect that such aid will be given. He who thinks it
enthusiasm to look for the bestowal of direct and immediate
Spiritual influence for the enlightenment of his mind in spiritual
things, may well be left destitute of it. And an all-important
subject for consideration is it, for those who have taken any
step in religion in such a state of mind, whether they may not
have been left, in the just judgment of God, to reap the fruits of
their preference for man’s teaching, in being misled by it to
‘their own infinite and perhaps eternal injury.
The promises of wisdom and grace and Spiritual influence
and guidance, to all who seek them in the spirit of earnest sin-
cerity and faith, are free, and full, and universal, and not tied
to the use of particular ordinances, or the medium of the minis-
trations of Christ’s ministers. And it is no light offence to
overlook those promises, and seek elsewhere for that which is so
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 543
graciously promised as flowing to the prayer of faith direct from
the Fountain and Source of all spiritual life and knowledge.
Again, let us observe,
(4) That this system weakens the foundation for faith in Scrip-
ture as the word of God.
The sole foundation for our belief in this truth is, we are told,
the testimony of Tradition. That which manifestly had more
influence than anything else on the minds of many of the most
intelligent of the first converts to Christianity, in the earliest
ages of the Church, to mduce them to receive Scripture as the
word of God, I mean the internal evidence to its Divine origin,
is passed over as a nullity, and the Tradition of the Church
described as the authority on which alone this truth stands.
The position itself has been already so fully discussed in the
preceding part of this work, that I do not here notice it for the
purpose of refutation, but merely to point out the effect it must
have in leaving the faith of men in this all-important truth to
rest upon such a fragile foundation.
And we may add,—
(5) And lastly, The utter insufficiency of the grounds upon
which all religious faith is made to rest.
The great principle of the Church of England we maintain to
be, to require nothing to be believed as an Article of the Chris-
tian faith but what, in her judgment, has good and imdubitable
foundation for it in the Holy Scriptures, and to make the Scrip-
ture-proof of it the ground upon which it is to be believed.
Hence the custom prevalent in her communion from the first
has been, to place that Scripture-proof before the minds of all
her members, young and old, as the authority upon which her
statements are made. In the full conviction that the truths
she has derived from Scripture, and put forth in her Confession
and Formularies, are plainly delivered there, and will be seen to
be so by the spiritually-enlightened mind, she sends her mem-
bers to the word of God, and exhorts them to judge her by that
standard, and to build their faith only upon that sure rock of
Divine truth. And if, unfortunately, those truths fail to com-
mend themselves, in any case, to the mind, she claims no
authority over men to pronounce an infallible judgment upon
them, or to condemn them because they reject her determinations
544, ᾿ GENERAL REMARKS ON
on the subject. She dears witness, indeed, to the danger of
their state according to her judgment, and, acting upon that judg-
ment, may pronounce them to be involyed in what she believes
to be serious or fatal error, as the case may be; and, so far as
concerns their membership in her communion, may deal with
them as in such a state. But she makes no claim, as the expo-
nent of “ Tradition” or “ Catholic Consent,” or in any other way,
to the right of demanding their obedience as an authoritative
and infallible Teacher of Divine truth.
But what is the system of our opponents? The Holy Serip-
tures are as it were kept out of sight as a foundation for faith
to rest upon. For, faith is to be given to the teaching of Tradi-
tion, or of the Church from Tradition, and Holy Scripture is only
to be referred to afterwards for the purpose of seeing in it the
passages which we are bound to believe prove what Tradition or
the Church has taught us. And accordingly, as the difficulties
and embarrassments with which Tradition is encompassed, can
hardly be denied, we were plainly told by Mr. Newman, that we
must be satisfied with probabilities, and that we have in fact no-
thing but a mere probability for faith to rest upon in any article
of Christian belief. This perhaps goes beyond what others of
the party would sanction, but is a plain proof of the tendency
of their system. Let us take another specimen of it in the
Tractarian Review of the former edition of this work. The
writer spends a considerable portion of his Review im proving
“the great duty of unhesitating belief in the first instance on
insufficient grounds.”*. Nay, he tells us, that “no doctrine can
be understood until acted upon, nor acted upon until believed.’””*
And he denies “that an individual can find for himself the
“Scripture proof for a Scriptural doctrine before he has
“ first believed and acted upon it, or, in other words, that
“ conscious examination of the text of Scripture is the fit way to
“ ascertain its meaning, or even that such examination might
“not cause men fatally to mistake its meaning.”* And he
thinks, that the “ accordance ” of any truth “with the Sacred
Volume” may “not appear even probable except to him who
1 See above, vol. i. pp. 76, 77. 3 Tb. p, 55.
2 Brit. Crit. for April 1842. p. 51. * Ib. p. 61.
THE WHOLE SUBJECT. 545
“has previous sympathy with that truth, nor certain except to
“ him who has first believed it.” And he objects to the state-
ment that truths, even “when pointed out by Tradition,” ‘ will be
clearly recognised in Scripture” “independently of antecedent
“ prepossession, and previously to belief of them and action under
“ their guidance.”* So that unless a man is firmly fixed in his
religious belief before he goes to the Scriptures, he has no
chance of seeing the truth there, even though he may have
Tradition pointing it out to him. And this “ antecedent pre-
possession ” is to be derived from “‘ the Church’s” teaching, for
the primary duty is to follow implicitly ‘the Church’s instruc-
tions,” as “infants” “ believe what their parents teach them ;”
(p. 97 ;) and having had the belief of these instructions firmly
fixed in his mind, then he may be permitted to consult the
Scriptures. I confess I am not surprised at this jealous fear of
the effect likely to be produced by the perusal of the Scriptures,
before the mind has become thoroughly and firmly imbued with
what Tractarians regard as Church doctrines and principles, and 1
cannot think it misplaced; but I must be permitted to regard
the fact as one of great significance.
Such, then, is the nature of Tractarian “ faith,’ and the way
in which it is obtained. And the writer thinks, that we are
‘taught this “great duty of unhesitating belief on imsufficient
grounds,” by the example of the child believing on the word of
its parent ;? to which of course the obvious reply is, that the
child does not believe on what appears to him insufficient
grounds. He thinks he has sufficient grounds in the word of
his parent to found his belief upon, otherwise belief would not
exist. To the scraps of Aristotle, and attempts to philosophize
about the matter, I think it needless to reply. They are suited
only to mystify a very plain matter. And the appeal in such a
case is to the common sense of mankind. I will not, therefore,
delay the reader further upon this point than just to draw his
attention to it as showing how the very foundations of Christian
belief are undermined by this system,
1 Tb, p. 56. 2 Ib. p. 57. 3 Tb. p. 50, and see p. 39.
VOL. III. N N
ADDENDA.
-—o—
Vol. i. p. 405. Note. Add as follows :—
Some words of Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius elsewhere
(lib. iv. c. 22), are sometimes referred to as opposed to the view
here taken of his testimony, but, as it appears to me, without
reason. Eusebius says, that Hegesippus writes, that on a jour-
ney to Rome he visited very many bishops, and heard from them
all one and the same doctrine (ὡς πλείστοις ἐπισκόποις συμ-
μίξειεν, ἀποδημίαν στειλάμενος μέχρι Ῥώμης" καὶ ὡς ὅτι τὴν
αὐτὴν παρὰ πάντων παρείληφε διδασκαλίαν) ; and then quoting a
portion of the passage that followed this statement in Hegesippus,
he cites the following words as used by Hegesippus,—“ In each
“« Succession and in each City the state of things is agreeable to
“‘ what is preached by the Law and the Prophets and the Lord.”
(ἐν ἑκάστῃ διαδοχῇ Kal ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει, ὡς ὁ νόμος
κηρύττει καὶ of προφῆται καὶ ὁ Κύριος.) But it is clear from the
context of the words, and in fact from the necessity of the case,
that Hegesippus was only speaking here of those he had visited.
Respecting the state of others he was no sufficient authority ;
and if he had meant more than that, his testimony would have
been insufficient, and contradicted by facts.
Vol. i. p. 110.1. 18. Add the following :—
Mr. Keble has also fallen into the same mistake as Mr. New-
man as to the meaning of 2 Tim. i. 13; quoting it as if it fol-
lowed from it that the Apostle had delivered to Timothy “a
form of sound words.” (See his Sermon on Prim. Trad. p. 18.)
Another passage, referred to by Mr. Keble on this subject,
is 1 Tim. vi. 12. “ Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on
“ eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed
“a good profession (or confession—®podrcynoas τὴν καλὴν
ADDENDA. 547
“€ ὁμολογίαν) before many witnesses :’—‘ Which £ good con-
“ fession’ can only mean,’ says Mr. Keble, (Serm. p. 16.)
“ the Apostles’ Creed, or some corresponding formula, recited at
“ baptism.” Now whatever this “‘ confession” was, it seems to
be considered by most Commentators that it was made at his
ordination ; and Theodoret understands it as applying to his
preaching. And why are we to suppose that it consisted of a
particular form of words, such as the Apostles’ Creed? There
is no reason to be given why it should necessarily mean this.
And, in fact, in the very context of the passage we have pretty
good evidence that the phrase is not so to be understood, or at
any rate that we cannot affix that meaning to the phrase; for
in the very next verse we have the same phrase used respecting
our Lord’s testimony before Pilate; “ who before Pontius
Pilate,” says the Apostle, “ witnessed a good confession.”
(μαρτυρήσαντος τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν.)
Two other passages from the Epistles to Timothy are also
cited on this subject, which it may be well just to notice;
namely, 1 Tim. vi. 20. “O Timothy, keep that which is com-
“ mitted to thy trust, (τὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον), avoiding
profane and vain babblings,” &c., and 2 Tim.i. 14. “ That
* good thing which was committed unto thee keep (τὴν καλὴν
“ παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον) by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth
(ἐπι τ.
The “ deposit” (παρακαταθήκην) here spoken of is referred to
by some as indicating some precise form of words, but on what
grounds it is difficult to see. Certainly the Fathers give no
sanction to the notion ; and some, as Theodoret, do not consider
it to refer to doctrine at all. Indeed Mr. Keble admits, that it
“is commonly understood by the Fathers to mean the truths
committed by St. Paul to Timothy.” (Serm. p. 18.) It embraces
much more, therefore, than any brief confession of faith like the
Apostles’ Creed; and had it been something delivered in a
precise form of words, it is incredible that it should neither have
come down to us, nor even its existence be noticed by any
antient author. The passage, it must be remembered, refers to
* one who was the pupil of the Apostle himself, and had received
the faith from him, and to whom, therefore, the Apostle’s oral
NN2
548 ADDENDA.
instructions were as authoritative as the Scriptures of the New
Testament, and, in fact, formed almost his only guide, because
he could hardly have possessed at that time any portion of
the New Testament Scriptures. But there is not the slightest
reason to suppose, that St. Paul’s instructions to him had been
conveyed in a certain precise form of words. The use made of
this passage by Mr. Keble on the general subject, I shall con-
sider hereafter. (See vol. 11. pp. 75 et seq.)
ERRATA.
Vol. i. p. 86.1.5. Before “ doctrine,” add “ divinely-revealed.”
p. 316. notes 1. ult., and p. 394 notes 1. 2, and p. 418 notes 1. 15. For “ Sylburg.” and
“Sylb.” read “ edd. Paris. 1641 and Colon. 1688.”
Vol. ii. p. 10.1. 23. After “ Spirit,’ add “ and the moral excellence of the Revelation.” ν
" p.91.1.18. For “important,” read “necessary.”
1.9. Before “ our,” add “ of.”
191.1. 30. Dele “ of.”
230. note. For “c. 5, 4.” read “ c. 5. 2 4.”
. 270.1. 31. For “orm,” read “ form.”
p..217, notes 1. 1 and 4; and p. 433, notes, 1. 4. For “Sylb.” read “ edd. Paris. 1641 and
Colon. 1688.”
» Ppp- 306.1. 30. and 307, notes, 1.1. For “Downham” read “ Downame.”
» Ρ. 324. notes, 1.2. For “Claget’s Brief Discourse,” read “ Claget’s Examination of
Bellarmine’s seventh note in the Brief Discourse.”
» p.382. notes 1. 7. After “ Min. Fel.” add “ Octavius :”
Vol. iii. p. 104. 1.14. For “ demand,” read “ have demanded.”
» p.-177. 1.27. For “Sextus,” read “ Sixtus.”
”
INDEX OF WORKS CITED.
A.
Acosta (Jos.) De Christo revelato. Rom. 1590. Ato.
ALEXANDRI Episc. ALEX. Epistola ad fratres, &.—In Socrar. Hist. Eccles.
AmsBrosit ΜΈΡΙΟΙ,.. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1686. 2 vol. fol.
ANASTASIT SINAITz Vie dux. Ingolst. 1606. 4to.
Anon.: Parvus Labyrinthus.
See Rourn. Reliquie Sacre.
Anon. De montibus Sina et Sion.—Inter Op. Cyprrant.
Anon. Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines that Episcopacy is according
to the word of God. Oxf. 1644. 4to.
Anon. Statement respecting the Jerusalem Bishopric. Lond. 1841. 8vo.
(Published with the sanction of Abp. Howley.)
Anon. Epistola ad Diognetum.—Inter Op. Justin. Marr.
Antoni Mon. ad monach.—Inter Op. ATHANASII.
Aquinas. See THomAS AQUINAS.
ἈΑΒΈΤΗ. Czsar. Comment. in Apocalypsim. ;
Cum (ΕΟ ΜΕΚΙΙ Comment. in Noy. Test. Lutet. Par. 1631. 2 vol. fol.
Arnopit Ady. Gentes libr. vii. Lugd. Bat. 1651. 8vo.
᾿Αρχιερατικὸν. Constantinop. 1820. fol.
AsTERD ὈΈΒΑΝΙ Fragm.—In Evses. Hist. Eccl., and Rourn. Reliq. Sacr.
ATHANASII Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1698. 2 vol. in 3 pts. fol.
ATHENAGOR. Legatio pro Christianis.—Ad fin. Op. Justry. Marr.
Avuctor Synopici ady. Trag. Irenzi.—In Rovuru. Reliq. Sacr.
AuGustIni Hippon. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1689—1700. Cum Append.
Augustin. Antw. 1703. 12 vol. fol.
B.
Bacon, (Lord) Works. Lond. 1819. 10 vols. 8vo.
BausamMon (Theod.) Canones SS. Apostol., Concil. Gener., &c. cum comment.
Theod. Balsamon. Paris. 1620. fol.
Bak1ow (Bp. T.) Directions for the choice of books in the study of divinity.
Publ. from the MS. by W. Offley. Oxf. 1699. 4to.
BARNABZ Epistola.—See “ Parkes APOSTOLICI.”
Barrow (Dr. Is.) Works. Oxf. 1818. 6 vol. 8vo.
Basit. Czsar. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1721—30. 3 vol. fol.
550 INDEX OF WORKS CITED.
ΒΑΞΙΒῈ (Dr. Is ) Funeral Sermon for Bp. Cosin, with account of his life. Lond.
1673, 8vo.
BaxXtTER (Rich.) Christian Directory. Lond. 1678. fol.
ΒΈΟΘΑΝΙ (Mart.) Summa Theolog. Scholast. Paris. 1630. fol.
BELLARMINI (Card.) Opera. Colon. Agripp. 1620. 7 vol. fol.
BERINGTON (Jos.) and Kirx (Jo.) The faith of Catholics confirmed by Scripture
and attested by Fathers. 3d. ed. 1846. 3 vol. 8vo.
BERNARD (Dr. N.) Life and death of Abp. Usher. Lond. 1656. 8vo.
BIBLIOTHECA Patrum ed. Galland. Venet. 1765—81. 14 vol. fol. Also ed. Colon.
Agripp. 1618. 15 vol. fol. Also ed. Marg. de la Bigne, Paris. 1575—9. 9 vol.
fol.
Butson (Bp. T.) True difference between Christian subjection and unchristian —
rebellion. Oxf. 1585. 4to. and Lond. 1586. 8vo.
ΒΙΝΘΉΛΜ (Jos.) Works. Lond. 1843. 9 vol. 8yo.
Brrcu (T.) Life of Abp. Tillotson. 2d. ed. Lond. 1753. 8vo.
BLacKsToneE (W.) Commentaries on the Laws of England. 12th ed. by Christian.
Lond. 1793. 4 vol. 8vo.
BraMuatt (Abp. J.) Works. Oxf. 1842—5. 5 vol. 8vo.
Brett (T.) Collection of Antient Liturgies. Lond. 1720. 8vo.
Do. An answer to the plain account of the Sacrament. Lond. 1736. 8vo.
BrinGEs (Bp. J.) Defence of the Government established in the Church of
England. Lond. 1587. 4to.
BritisH Critic and Quart. Theol. Review. Nos. for Jan. 1838. April 1839. July
1841 and July 1842.
British Macazine. Nos. for May 1839. Feb. 1840 and May 1840.
Buppe! (J. F.) Isagoge ad Theologiam. Lips. 1730. 2 vol. 4to.
But (Bp. 6.) Defensio fidei Niczenze. Oxon. 1685. 4to.
BuuyincGer (H.) De origine erroris. Tigur. 1568. fol.
Born (Rich.) The Ecclesiastical Law. 8th ed. by Tyrwhitt. Lond. 1824. 4 vol. 8vo.
Burnet (Bp. Gilb.) Exposition of the XX XIX Articles. 5th ed. Lond. 1746. 8vo.
Do. History-of his own time. Oxf. 1823. 6 vol. 8vo.
Burton (Prof. E.) Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the doctrine of the
Trinity, ἄς, Oxf. 1831. 8vo.
Do. Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the divinity of Christ. 2d. ed.
Oxf. 1829. 8vo.
BUrieR (Bp. Jos.) Analogy of Religion. Glasg. 1829. 8vo.
C.
CareTANn (Card.) Comment. in Vet. et Nov. Test. Lugd. 1639. 5 vol. fol.
CAMPBELL (Hon. A.) The doctrine of a Middle State, ἄς. Lond. 1721. fol.
CARDWELL (Dr. E.) Synodalia, a collection of Articles, &c. Oxf. 1842. 2 vol. 8vo.
[CaRDWELL (T.)] Labyrinthus Cantuariensis, or Dr. Laud’s Labyrinth, being an
answer to the late Abp. of Canterburie’s relation of a conference between
himself and Mr. Fisher, wherein, &c. Paris. 1658. fol.
CassanpRrI (Geo.) De articnlis relig. inter Protest. et Cathol. controy. Consultatio.
Lugd. 1612. 12mo.
Cassranti Opera. Lips. 1733. fol.
CaTEecuismus Concit. Tri. Paris. 1831. 8vo.
CATHOLIC MaGazrNe for March 1839.
INDEX OF WORKS CITED. 5a1
Cave (W.) Seriptorum Heelies Histor. Literar. 2a. ed. Oxon. 1740), 41. 2 vail. fall.
CHatove® (Dr. ΒΕ) Credo Sanctann Heclesi πὶ Cathol. Lend. 169%. 12mm.
Carysostour Opera, ed. Montihacom Paris. 1713 ef seq 13 voi. fail
Craczrr (W_) See “ Hutchinson”
Do. Seventh note of the Charch examined. In work entitled, Brief disemmse
conc. the notes of the Church, &e. Lond. 1687. tt, ar ow Bin. Gibson’ Pee
servative.
Crewe Arex. Opera, ed. Patter. Oxom. 1705. 2vail. fail. and Calon. 1688. fal.
Coct (Rob.) Censure quorundann scripterum, Se. Lend. 1604 4m.
Contre (Jer.) Becles. Hist. of Great Britaim. Lend. 1708—24. 2 vail fill.
Comszz (Dean T.) Roman forgeries im the Council. Pt. 1. Lond. 168. tom PR. 2.
Lond. 1696. 4to.
Cowcrnns Εἰ πε ξι, ed. Labi. ct Cossart. Paris. 1671 ef seq. 1S voll iil. Ale
ed. Hardoum. Paris. 1715. 11 voll a» ἘΞ vol. fel.
Comcmirs Macx. Baro er Hm ad. Wilens. Lond 1737. 4 vail. fa.
Concimnm™: Innisee. ed. Mendox. Wadrt. 1364. fol.
Corners. Cazrteac. De baptiz. heret.—Iinter Op Creams.
Conc. Tarpayr. Pars. 1832. Sve.
Constaatist Maex. Epistele—In Ganas. Comic. Comm Act. Cane. Mie
Constr tiorzs Avostonic®.—See * Patres Apestal ad. Cotelier”
Cosstrretoss Avostonican. The Apestelical Constitutions im Coptic, with
Engl. transi by Archd. Tattam. Lond. 19:48. royal Sve,
Coorz= (Bp. Ὁ} Admonition te the people of Enginnd (est printed m 1G)
Do. Opmion wien Deam of Peterberouci, and m@ edie. fr commmmiriine
rather with Geneva tham Rome. Pubi by Dr. BR. Watsom Lond. 1624 Som.
Do. Regni Angie Beligito et Gaberm Heelies. Lend 1722. 4m. -
Cosay (Dr. EB.) Prima Limesmenta present. Polit. Heeles, Aneiic. 2 156.
Annexed to Bp. J. Cosin’s Reeni Angi Relivio, Ge. referred to abewe.
Cosmas Iyoncornenetss.—See *Montizacem Seript. Wet. Naw. Cuil”
Czaxsvrsor? (B.) Defensio Keeleste Aneiicame Lendom. 1625. Som.
Cyesrest Opera, ed. Fell. Oxom 1682 fil. Alo aii. Pamell Call teripp. 1697. fill
Cyemn. Aces Opera, af. Aubert. Pars. 1638 ct seq. (5 voll. im 7 pis. fil.
Cxemu Hieses. Opera. ei. Wiles. Osom. 1702. fail
ΤᾺ.
Deutane (Jo.) Trestise concer the mht παρ᾿ αἱ the Fathers, Lendl. Ion. fim.
Davexayr (Bp. J.) Exhortatiom te brotherly communion betwits the Protestant
Churches. Lend. 1641. lime.
De. Determ. question, fe. Cant. 1654. fail
Daveseout (Chrst.) under the name of Prev ἡ Sescts: Cisse Deus We
furs, Gratien. Stve Tractatus de Predestinatione, Se. ahi ad teutimenm fides
Cathoi. examinatur Contessiv Angiicana, de. de. Za ed. Let. 164 ὅσα.
Drowrsit Antex. Fracm.—In Op. Arava.
552 INDEX OF WORKS CITED.
Dionysi Cortntu. Fragm.—In Evses. Histor. Eccles.
Dioyystt Rom. Fragm.—In Op. ATHANASII.
Dionysit AREOP. Opera. Venet. 1755, 6. 2 vol. fol. ᾿
DopweEtt (H.) De jure laicorum sacerdotali. Lond. 1685. 8vo.
DositHEI Τόμος ἀγάπης κατὰ Λατίνων. Jassii in Molday. 1698. fol.
DownaME (Bp. G.) Sermon at consecration of Bp. of Bath and Wells. Lond.
1608. 4to.
Do. Defence of sermon at consecration, &e. Lond. 1611. 4to.
DownsIdE Discussion. The authenticated Report of the Discussion at Down-
side in Feb. and March 1834. Lond. 1836. 8vo.
D’Oyty (Dr. G.) Life of Abp. Sancroft. Lond. 1821. 2 vol. 8vo.
Du Prin C1. E.) Ecclesiastical History. Dubl. 1723. 3 vol. fol.
Duranpr Aa Sancro Porcrano. Comment. in quat. libr. Sentent. Lugd.
1587. fol.
E.
EpirHanii Opera, ed. Petav. Paris. 1622. 2 vol. fol.
EPHR2£MI Sypi Opera, ed. Asseman. ἄς. Rome 1732—46. 6 vol. fol.
Erasmi Rot. Epistole. Lond. 1642. fol.
Evsesit C#sar. Historia Eccles.—Inter Histor. Eccles. Gree. ed. Reading. Cant.
1720. 3 vol. fol.
EsuspEemM Vita Constantini.—Ad fin. Histor. Eccles.
EstspEmM Epistola ad Diceces—In THEOoDORET. Hist. Eccl., and Socrat. Hist.
Eccl. &e.
EsusDEM Preparatio Evangelica. Col. 1688. fol.
EscuspEM Demonstratio Evangelica. Col. 1688. fol.
EsuspEM De Eccles. Theolog.—Ad fin. Demonstr. Evangel.
EvrHeEerit Sermones.—Inter Op. THEODORETI.
Eveycuit Parr. Avex. Ecclesiw suze Origines, ed. Selden. Lond. 1642. 4to.
EvacGrit ScHouast. Histor. Eccles. — Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree. ed. Reading.
Cant. 1720. 3 vol. fol.
Eyre (F.) A Reply tothe Rev. R. Churton. Lond. 1798. 8vo.
F.
Fasricit (J. A.) Codex Apocryphus Nov. Test. 2a. ed. Hamb. 1719. 3 pts. in
2 vols. 8vo.
EsvsprM Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica. Hamb. 1718. fol.
Feirx III. Par. Epistola ad Petr. Fullonem. Ep. Antioch.
See Conciir1a EccLEs.
Fred (Dean R.) Of the Church. 2d. ed. Oxf. 1628. fol.
Frrmtian. Czsar. Ep. ad Cyprianum.—Inter Cypriant Opera.
FisHER (Jo. Jes.) Rejoinder unto the Reply of 1). Fr. White.
In the work entitled, An Answer to the nine points of controversy, «ec.
1626. 4to.
FLEETWOOD (Bp. W.) Judgment of the Church of England in the ease of Lay-
baptism. 2d. ed. Lond. 1712. 8vo.
INDEX OF WORKS CITED. 553
ForBES (Jo. a Corse) Opera omnia. Amst. 1703. 2 vol. fol.
FULGENTIZ Rusp. Opera, ed. Mangeant. Paris. 1684. 4to. Also Venet.
1742. fol.
G.
Gexasit CyzicENI Comment. Act. Concil. Niceni. ed. Balf. Lutet. 1599. Svo.
Genyapit Massru. De Eccles. dogmatibus. ed. Elmenhorst. Hamb. 1614. 4to.
Also inter Op. AUGUSTINI, tom. 8.
Gipson (Bp. J.) Preservative against Popery. Lond. 1738 et seq. 3 vol. fol.
Do. Codex Juris Eccles. Anglic. 2d. ed. Oxon. 1761. 2 vol. fol.
GrEeGoriII Maen. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1705. 4 vol. fol.
GREGORI Nazianz. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1778—1840. 2 vol. fol.
GREGORIT Neoc#sak. vel THAUMATURGI Opera. Paris. 1622. fol.
GREGORIL NyssENI Opera. Paris. 1615—18. 2 vol. et Suppl. fol.; and Paris.
1638. 3 vol. fol.
GRETSER. (Jac.) De jure et more prohibendi, &c. Ingolstad. 1603. 4to.
Grotit (Hug.) Opera. Lond. 1679. 3 vol. in 4 pts. fol.
EstspEM De imper. Summ. Potest. circa sacra. Paris. 1647. 12mo.
GROVE (Bp. Rob.) The Protestant and Popish way of interpreting Scripture
impartially compared, in answer to Pax vobis. Lond. 1689. 4to. or in Bp. Gib-
son’s Preservative.
H.
Hatt (Bp. Jos.) Works, ed. by Pratt. Lond. 1808. 10 vol. 8vo.
Hartam (H.) Constitutional History of England. 4th ed. Lond. 1842. 2 vol. 8vo.
HammonpD (Dr. H.) Works. Lond. 1684 et seq. 4 vol. fol.
[HawarpEN (Dr. E.)] The Rule of faith truly stated. [no place] 1721. 12mo.
ἨΈΘΈΒΙΡΡΙ Fragm.
In Evses. Hist. Eccles.; and Rout. Reliq. Sacr.
Herm Pastor.—See “ Parres APOSTOLICI.”
Hey (Dr. Jo.) Lectures in divinity. 2d. ed. Camb. 1822. 4 vol. 8vo.
Heyiin (Dr. P.) Cyprianus Anglicus, or Hist. of Life, &c., of Archb. Laud.
Dubl. 1719. fol.
HreronyMi Strip. Opera, ed. Vallars. 2a. Venet. 1766—72. 24 parts in 11
vol. 4to.
Hizartt Dirac. Comment. in Epist. Paul.—tInter Op. AmBrosi.
Himari Pictav. Opera,ed. Bened. Paris. 1693. fol.
Hippotyti Opera, ed. J. A. Fabricio. Hamb. 1716—18. 2 vol. fol.
Hoven (H.) Div. fidei Analysis. Paris. 1767. Svo.
Hook (Dr. W. F.) A call to union on the Principles of the English Reformation
(a Visitation Sermon, with notes). Lond. 1838. 8vo.
Hooxer (Rich.) Works, ed. by Keble. Oxf. 1836. 4 vol. 8vo.
Horstey (Bp. 8.) Sermons. Lond. 1829. 2 vol. 8vo.
Hverii (P. D.) Origeniana.—Ad fin. Op. On1GENIs ed. Ben.
HvsENBETH (Εἰ. C.) Faberism exposed and refuted. Norwich. 1836. 8vo.
. HuvtTcHINson ( ) and Cracerr (W.) Historical Exam. of the authority of
General Councils, &c. Lond. 1688. 4to. or, in Bp. Gibson’s Preservative,
vol. 1.
δ54. INDEX OF WORKS CITED.
Ienatit AnTIOCcH. Epistole.—See “ Patres Apostolici.”
Iypex Auctorum et libr. qui ab Officio 8. Rom. et Univ. Inquisit. caveri ab
omnibus, &c., mandantur. Rom. 1559. 4to.
InpEx ExpurGatorivs. Madrit. 1584. 4to.
InpExX Expureatorivs. Rome. 1607. 8vo.
Inpex ExpurG. Beteious. Antw. 1571. 4to.
Istpori Hispau. Opera, ed. F. Arevalo. Rome 1797—1803. 7 vol. 4to.
Istpori Petvs. Epistole, ed. Rittershus. Paris. 1638. fol.
IREN#I Opera, ed. Massuet. Paris. 1710. fol. Also ed. Grab. Oxon. 1702. fol.
J.
Jackson (Dr. T.) Works, Lond. 1673. 3 vol. fol.
JaMES (Dr. T.) Treatise of the corruption of Scripture Councils and Fathers, by
the Prelates, &c., of the Church of Rome. 2d. ed. Lond. 1688. 8vo.
Do. Index Gen. Libror. Prohib. Oxon. 1627. 12mo.
JEWEL (Bp. J.) Works. Lond. 1609. fol.
JOHNSON (Jo.) The unbloody Sacrifice and Altar. Lond. 1724. 2 vol. 8vo.
Do. The Clergyman’s Vade Mecum. Lond. 1728. 2 vol. 12mo.
JuRis Canon. Corpus. Lugd. 1624. 3 vol. fol.
Juris Canon. VET. BrstiotH. ed. Justell. et Voell. Paris. 1661. 2 vol. fol.
Juris Cryin. Rom. Corpus. Lips. 1705. 2 vol. 4to.
JUSTINI Marr. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1742. fol. Also ed. Colon. 1686. fol.
κι
Kaye (Bp. J.) Ecclesiastical History illustrated from the writings of Tertullian.
3d. ed. Lond. 1845. 8vo.
Do. Account of the writings and opinions of Clement of Alexandria. Lond.
1835. 8vo.
KEBLE (J.) Primitive Tradition recognised in Holy Scripture: a Sermon preached
in the Cathedral Church of Winchester at the Visitation, &c. 3d. ed. with a
Postscript, to which is subjoined Catena Patrum No. 3., being No. 78 of the
* Tracts for the Times,” Lond. 1837. 8vo.
Kine (Lord) History of the Apostles’ Creed. 4th ed. Lond. 1719. 8vo.
L.
LactTantit Opera, ed. Spark. Cantabr. 1685. Svo. Also ed. Le Brun et Du-
fresnoy. Paris. 1748. 2 vol. 4to.
LAMPE (F, A.) Comment. in Evang. Johann. Amst. 1724. 3 vols. 4to.
LARDNER (Nath.) Works. Lond. 1838. 10 vol. 8vo.
Laup (Archb. W.) The History of the troubles and trial of W. Laud, Abp. of
Canterbury, &c., published by H. Wharton. Lond. 1695—1700. 2 vols. fol.
INDEX OF WORKS CITED. 55a
Do. Relation of the Conference between W. Laud and Fisher the Jesuit. Lond.
1686. fol.
LeEonis Macnr Opera. ed. 2a. Quesnell. Lugd. 1700. fol.
Lerontit Byzant. Ady. Apollinarist.—See Biblioth. Patr. ed. Galland. vol. xii.
EsuspEm De Sectis.—See Biblioth. Patr. ed. Galland. vol. xii.
Lesiiz (C.) Works. Lond. 1721. 2 vols. fol.
L’EstranGe (H.) Alliance of Divine Offices. 2d. ed. Lond. 1690. fol.
Liperit Epistole.
Inter Op. Himar. Proray.
Luciani Marr. Confessio.
Inter Op. ATHANASII.
Lucy (Bp. W.) Treatise on the nature ofa minister, ἕο. Lond. 1670. 4to.
Lumper (Gotfr.) Hist. Theolog.-Crit. de vita, ἄς. Patrum. Aug. Vind. 1783
et seq. 13 vol. 8vo.
LynDwoop (W.) Provinciale Anglic. Oxon. 1679. fol.
Macarit Aeypr. Homil.
Cum Oper. GREGOR. NEOCHES.
Marponati (Jo.) Comment. in Quat. Evangelistas. Mogunt. 1624. fol.
Mant (Bp. R.) Book of Common Prayer, with Notes, ἕο. Lond. 1830. 4to.
[Maran (Prud.)] Divinitas Jesu Christi manifesta in Scripturis et Traditione.
Paris. 1746. fol.
Mason (Archd. F.) The validity of the Ordination of the ministers of the Re-
formed Churches beyond the seas. Oxf. 1641. 4to.
MEDE (Jos.) Works. Lond. 1672. fol.
ΜΈΤΗΟΡΙΙ Convivium decem virg.
See Bibl. Patr. ed. Galland. vol. 3.
Mryvrit Fexicis Octavius: De idolorum vanit. Oxon. 1678. 12mo.
Miri (Aub.) Auctarium de Scriptor. Eccles.
See Fapricii Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica.
Monracvrit (Rich.) Apparatus ad Orig. Eccles. Oxon. 1635. fol.
Montravcon (B. de) Collectio Nova Patrum. Paris. 1706. 2 vol. fol.
Mortnti (Jo.) De sacris Ordinationibus. Antw. 1695. fol.
Morton (Bp. T.) A Catholic Appeal for Protestants. Lond. 1610. fol.
Do. Of the Institution of the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of
Christ. 2d. ed. Lond. 1635. fol.
MosHeErm (Dr. J. L.) Ecclesiastical History translated by Maclaine. Lond. 1826.
6 vol, 8vyo. *
ΝΙ
ΝΈΜΟΟΜΕ (T.) Life of Archbishop Sharp. Lond. 1825. 2 vol. 8vo.
Newman (J.H.) Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, viewed
relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism. Lond. 1837. 8vo.
Do. An Essay on the development of Christian doctrine. Lond. 1845. 8vo,
556 . INDEX OF WORKS CITED.
Newman (J. H.) Letter to Dr. Fausset. 2d.ed. Oxf. 1838. 8vo.
Do. The Arians of the fourth century. Lond. 1833. 8vo.
Do. Dissertatiuncule quzedam critico-theologice. Rome. 1847. 8vo.
NicEprHori Catzist. Hist. Eccles. Lutet. 1630. 2 vol. fol.
Nicuotts (Dr. W.) Comment on the Book of Common Prayer. Lond. 1710. fol.
Noyatiani De Trinitate.
Ad fin. Op. TERTULLIANI.
NoweEtt (Alex.) Catechismus, ed. Jacobson. Oxon. 1835. 8vo.
O.
OrTatTi Opera, ed. Du Pin. Paris. 1700. fol.
ORIGENIS Opera, ed. C. De la Rue, Paris. 1733—59. 4 vol. fol
ἘΣ:
ῬΑΤΤΆΘΙΙ Vita Chrysostomi ed. Bigot. Paris. 1680. 4to.
ῬΑΡΙΞ Fragm.
In Evses. Hist. Eccles. ; or, in Rout Reliq. Sacr.
Parr (Dr. R.) Life and Letters of Archbishop Usher. Lond. 1686. fol.
Patres Apostorict, ed. Cotelerio. Amst. 1724. 2 vol. fol.
Do. ed. Jacobson. Oxon. 1838. 2 vol. ὅνο.
ParruM BIBLIoTHECA. See Bibliotheca.
Patrick (Bp. 5.) Answer to the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel. Lond.
1692. 12mo.
Do. Discourse about Tradition. Lond. 1683. 4to.
Do. Search the Scriptures. Lond. 1685. 12mo.
Pearson (Bp. J.) Exposition of the Creed, ed. by Dobson. Lond. 1832. 8vo.
Perron (Card. du) Replique a la Response du Sereniss. Roi de la Grand
Bretagne. Paris. 1620. fol.; or, English translation of first part. Douay.
1630. fol. °
Petavu (Dionys.) De theolog. dogmat. Antw. 1700. 6 vol.in 8. fol.
Prarriu(C.M.) Dissert. de oblat. vet. eucharist.—Ad fin. Lrenzi Fragm. Anecd.
Hage Com. 1715. 8vo.
Pue@sBavil Contra Arianos.
In Biblioth. Patrum, ed. Galland. tom, 5.
Puortt Bibliotheca. Paris. 1653. fol.
Pru IV. Bulla prefix. ad Catech. Concil. Trident.
See “Catech. Trident.”
PxLAcETTE (J.) Incurable scepticism of the Church of Rome [transl. by Archb.
Tenison }. Lond. 1688. 4to.; and in Bp. Gibson’s Preservative.
Pott (Card.) De Concilio, De baptismo Constantini, &c. Rome? 1562. 4to,
PotycaRPi Epist.—See “ Patres Apostolici.”
PoLycratTis Fragm.
In Evses. Hist. Eccles.; and Rouru. Relig. Sacr.
Prosper. AQuitT. Opera, ed. Mangeant. Paris. 1711. fol.
PrynneE (W.) A Breviate of the Life of W. Laud, Abp. of Canterbury. Lond,
1644. fol.
PsEtui (Mich.) Cap. Theolog. undecim ad Mich. Comn.
See DosITHEI Τόμος ἀγάπης.
INDEX OF WORKS CITED. 557
Pusey (Dr. E. B.) Letter to the Bishop of Oxford. Oxf. 1839. 8vo.
Do. Earnest remonstrance to the Author of the Pope’s Letter, reprinted as
No. 77 of the “ Tracts for the Times.”
R.
RaBant ΜΆΤΙ De instit. Cleric—In the work entitled,—De Cathol. Eccles.
div. offic. &c. vet. Patrum, &e. libri. Rom. 1591. fol.
RanpoupH (Bp. J.) Enchiridion Theologicum. 3d. ed. Oxf. 1825. 2 vol. 8vo.
REFORMATIO LEG. ECCLES. ed. Cardwell. Oxon. 1850. 8vo.
Renauvpbor. (Euseb.) Hist. Patriarch. Alex. Paris. 1713. 4to.
Esuspem Liturg. Orient. Collectio. Lond. 1847. 2 vol. 4to.
Rogers (Thom.) The faith, doctrine, and religion, &c. expressed in 39 Articles,
&e. ; the said Articles analyzed, &c. Lond. 1607. 4to.
' Rovts (Mart. J.) Reliquie Sacre. Oxon. 1814—18. 4 vol. 8vo. 2a. ed. Oxon.
1846—8. 5 vol. 8vo. ;
Rorrmt Aqui. Expos. in Symbolum.—Ad fin. Op. Cyprrani ed, Fell. Oxon.
1682. fol.
EsuspEm Apolog. pro Orig.—Inter HrzRonyMI Opera.
5.
ΒΑΤΑΓΕΒΟΝῚΒ (Alfons.) Comment. in Noy. Test. Col. Agripp. 1612 et seq. 7 vol.
fol.
SALVIANI Masstt. Opera, ed. Baluz. Paris. 1669. 8vo.
SANDERSON (Bp. Rob.) Discourse concernirg the Church. Lond. 1688. 4to.
Saravra (Hadr.) Opera. Lond. 1611. fol.
ScanDRET (J.) Sacrifice the Divine Service. Oxf. 1840. 18mo.
Sciarer (E.) Consensus Veterum, or the reasons of Edward Sclater, Min. of
Putney, for his conversion to the Catholic faith and communion. Lond.
1686. 4to.
Secxer (Abp. T.) Sermons, ed. by Bp. Porteus. Lond. 1770. 7 vol. 8vo.
SHEPHERD (Jo.) Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer. Lond. 1828,
2 vol. 8vo.
SHERLOCK (Dean W.) A Papist not misrepresented by Protestants. Lond.
1686. 4to.
Do. Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversies. Lond. 1686. 4to.
Do. Discourse concerning the nature, unity, &. of the Church. Lond. 1688,
4to. and in Bp. Gibson’s. Preservative,
Do. Vindication of the Discourse of the Notes of the Church. Lond. 1687.
4to. and in Bishop Gibson’s Preservative.
Do. Vindication of some Protestant Principles, ἕο, Lond. 1688. 4to. and in Bp.
Gibson’s Preservative.
Do. Preservative against Popery. Lond. 1688. 2 pts. 4to. and in Bp. Gibson’s
Preservative.
Do. anp orHERS. Brief discourse concerning the Notes of the Church, with
558 INDEX OF WORKS CITED.
reflections on Card. Bellarmine’s Notes. Lond. 1687. 4to. and in Bp. Gibson’s
Preservative, vol. 1. ;
[SHERMAN (J.)] Account of Faith, &c. Lond. 1661. 4to.
SrmueEri (J.) Oratio de vita et obitu P. Martyris. Tig. 1583. 4to.
ΞΊΧΤΙ SenENsIs Bibliotheca Sancta. Venet. 1566. fol.
Socratis ScHotast. Historia Eccles——Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree. ed. Reading:
Cant. 1720. 3 vol. fol.
SozoMEN. Historia Eccles.—Inter Hist. Eccles. Grac. ed. Reading. Cant. 1720.
3 vol. fol.
Sporswoop (Abp. J.) Hist. of Church and State of Scotland. 4th ed. Lond.
1677. fol.
SrapLETon (T.) Opera. Paris. 1620. 4 vol. fol.
STILLINGFLEET (Bp. E.) A rational account of the grounds of Protestant Re-
ligion. Lond. 1665. fol.
Do. Origines Sacre. Lond. 1666. 4ito.
Do. Answer to several Treatises. Lond. 1674. 8vo.
Do. Vindication of the Answer to some late Papers. Lond. 1687. 4to.
Do. Discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith.
Lond. 1688. 4to.
Do. Scripture and Tradition compared. Lond. 1688. 4to.
Do. The Council of Trent examined. Lond. 1688. 4to.
Do. Discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity. Lond. 1697. 8vo.
Do. Ecclesiastical Cases relating to the rights and duties of the Parochial
Clergy. First Part. 2d. ed. Lond. 1702. Second Part. Lond. 1704. 8vo.
ΞΤΕΥΡῈ (Jo.) Memorials of Abp. Cranmer. Oxf. 1840. 2 vol. 8vo.
Do. Life of Abp. Parker. Oxf. 1821. 3 vol. 8vo.
Do. Life of Abp. Grindal. Oxf. 1821. 8vo.
Sutcitvit (Matt.) De vera Ecclesia. Lond. 1600. 4to.
Synop. ANTIOCH. adv. Paul. Samos.
In Routu. Relig. Sacr.
Tatrant Ady. Grecos.
Ad fin. Op. JustINI Marv.
-Taytor (Bp. Jer.) Works, ed. by Heber. Lond. 1822. 15 vol. 8vo.
Tentson (Archb. T.) Introduction to the work entitled Popery not founded on
Scripture. Lond. 1688. 4to.
Do. Discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith. Lond. 1683. 4to. or in
Bp. Gibson’s Preservative.
Do. Difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods. Lond. 1687. 4to.
TERTULLIANI Opera, ed. Paris. 1664. fol. Also ed. Pamel. Col. Agripp. 1617. fol.
EsuspEM Libri ix. loc. quamplur. emendati, ed. Rigalt. Lutet. 1628. 8vo.
THEODORETI Opera, ed. Schulz. Hale, 1769—74. 5 vol. 8vo.
THEOPHYLI ALEX. Epistole Paschales.
In Biblioth. Patrum, ed. Galland. tom. vii.
ΤΉΞΒΟΡΗΥΙΙ AntiocH. Libri ad Autolycum.
Ad fin, Op. Justin. Marr.
Toom# AQUINATIS Summa Theologiz. Paris. 1631. fol.
_ INDEX OF WORKS CITED. 559
TintEMoNtT (L. 5. de Nain de) History of the Arians, translated by Deacon.
Lond. 1721. 2 vol. 8vo.
Trx1LoTson /Abp. Jo.) The Rule of faith. Lond. 1676. 8vo.
ToMLINE (Bp. G.) Exposition of the Articles. Lond. 1799. 2 vol. 8vo.
TRACTS FOR THE Times. Oxf. 1833 et seq. 8vo. nos. 1—90.
TREVERN (Bp.) Amicable discussion on the Church of England, and the Reforma-
tion, Transl. by Richmond. Lond. 1828. 2 vol. 8vo.
U.
UsHer (Archb. J.) De Rom. Eccles. Symb. Apost. Vet. aliisque fid. form. Oxon.
1660. 4to.
Do. The judgment of Archb. Usher on extent of Christ’s death, ἕο. ed. by Dr.
N. Bernard. Lond. 1657. 8vo.
Do. Answer to the Jesuit’s Challenge. Lond. 1686. 4to.
Do. A body of divinity, or the sum and substance of Christian Religion. 8th
ed. Lond. 1702. 4to.
Vi:
Van Mitpert (Bp. W.) An inquiry into the general principles of Scripture in-
terpretation, in sermons at the Bampton Lecture. 2d. ed. Lond. 1815. 8vo.
VeEnaAntit Fortuny. Expos. Symbol.—See Biblioth. Patr. ed. Galland. tom. 12.
Vierni Tapsens. Adv. Eutych—In Victor. Vir. et Viern. Taps. Op. ed.
Chifflet. Divione. 1664. 4to.
Vincentit LIRINENSIS Commonitorium, with English translation. Oxf. 1836,
1837. 8vo.
Vosst1 (G. J.) De tribus Symbolis. 2a. ed. Amstel. 1662. 4to.
W.
Wake (Archb. W.) Defence of the Exposition of the doctrine of the Church of
England against M. de Meaux. Lond. 1686. 4to.
Do. State of the Church and Clergy of England in their Councils, ἕο. Lond.
1708. fol.
Watcu (J. 6.) Introd. in libros Eccles. Luth. Symbol. Jena. 1732. 4to.
EsuspEM Bibliotheca Theologica. Jene. 1757—66. 4 vol. 8vo.
Watonts Messatrnt (i. 6. Cl. Sanmastt) De episcopis et presbyteris. Lug.
Bat. 1641. 8vo.
WATERLAND (Dr. Dan.) Works, ed. by Van Mildert. Oxf. 1823. 12 vol. 8vo.,
Warr (Rob.) Bibliotheca Britannica. Edin. 1824. 4 vol. 4to.
Wuarton (H.) Preface to “A treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of
faith, by R. Peacock, Bishop of Chichester in 1450, &ce. Lond. 1688.” Ato.
WHITAKER (W.) Opera Theologica. Geney. 1610. 2 vol. folio.
Wuitsy (Dr. D.) Dissert. de SS. interpr. sec. Patrum comment. Lond. 1714.
8vo.
Do. Comment. on the New Testament. 6th ed. Lond. 1744, 2 vols. fol.
560 INDEX OF WORKS CITED.
Waits (Bp. F.) Orthodox faith and way to the true Church explained.
Edn. annexed to Works of Dr. John White. Lond. 1624. fol.
Do. Reply to Jesuit Fisher’s Answer to certain Questions, &c. Lond. 1624. fol.
Wuirerrt (Archb. J.) Defence of the Answer to the Admonition. Lond. 1574.
fol.
WILKINS. See Concrn1a Maen. Brit.
WiseMAN (Dr. N.) A Letter on Catholic Unity, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, >y
Nicholas Bishop of Melipotamus. Lond. 1841. 8vo.
Wotrt (J. C.) Cure Philolog. et Grit. in Nov. Test. Basil. 1741. 5 vol. 4to.
Woop (Ant. a.) Athenz Oxonienses. ed. Bliss. Oxf. 1813—20. 4 vol. 4to.
Do. Hist. et Antiq. Universit. Oxoniens. Oxon. 1674. 2 vol. fol.
[ WoopHEAD (Abr.)] A Rational Account of the doctrine of Roman Catholics con-
cerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Religion. By R. H. 2d.
ed. [no place] 1678. 4to.
Z.
Zorntl (P.) Historia Eucharist. Infant. Berol. 1736. 8vo.
INDEX OF TEXTS
Gen. iii. 8, 9. It was Christ who talked
with Adam, where the person is said
to be the Lord God, say Theophil.
Ant., Tertull., and Irenzus, i. 386.
Gen. vi. 13. It was Christ who spake to
Noah, says Irenzus, i. 386.
Gen. xi. 5. It was Christ who went down
to confound the tongues at Babel where
it is said that it was the Lord, say
Justin Mart., Tertullian, and Novatian,
i. 386.
Gen. xiv. 18—20. Mr. Kebie’s mistake
in stating that the belief that Melchi-
zedek’s feast was a type of the blessed
eucharist, was supported by the con-
stant agreement of the early Church,
i. 340—342.
Gen. xviii. 1. It was Christ who appeared
to Abraham in the plains of Mamre
where he is called the Lord, and the
Judge of all the earth, say Justin
Mart., Clem. Alex., Tertull., and
Origen, i. 386.
Gen. xix. 24. It was Christ who rained
fire upon Sodom, say Justin Mart.,
Trenzus, and Tertull., i. 386.
Gen. xxii. It was Christ who tempted
Abraham, say Origen and Cyp., i. 387.
Gen. xxviii. 18. It was Christ who ap-
peared to Jacob as The Lord God of
Abraham and the God of Isaac, say
Justin Mart. and Clem. Alex., i. 387.
Gen. xxxi. 11,13. It was Christ who
spake to Jacob in a dream (see Gen.
xxviii. 13, 19), say Justin Mart., Cyp.,
and Novatian, i. 387.
Gen. xxxii. 24, 28,30. It was Christ who
wrestled with Jacob and is called
God, say Justin Mart., Irenzus, Clem.
Alex., and Concil. Antioch, i. 387.
Gen. xxxv. 1, 9. It was Christ who ap-
peared to Jacob, say Justin Murt. and
Cyp., i. 387.
Exod. iii. 2. It was Christ who appeared
to Moses in the bush, say Justin Mart.,
Trenzeus, Clem. Alex., and Tertull.,
i. 387.
Exod. xvii. 14. Things to be perpetuated
to be committed to writing, ii. 21.
VOL. III.
CITED.
Exod. xxxiv. 27. Things to be perpetu-
ated to be committed to writing, ii. 21.
Ley. vi. 1. It was Christ who spoke to
Moses, and consequently who delivered
the whole of the Law, says Origen,
i. 387.
Deut. xxxi. 19. Things to be perpetuated
to be committed to writing, ii. 21.
Josh. v. 13. It was Christ who appeared
to Joshua near Jericho, says Just.
Mart., i. 387.
Prov, i. 2—4. Shows that Scripture is
available to produce faith, and through
faith salvation, according to Hooker,
iii. 388.
Prov. viii. 22. Applied by most of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers to the divine ge-
neration of the Son; by Irenzus to
the Holy Spirit. After misuse of it by
the Arians generally applied by the
orthodox to the generation of the
human nature of Christ; as by Atha-
nasius and Augustine. Applied by
Hilary of Poictiers as referring τὸ the
period when our Lord first assumed
(as he supposes) a human form to carry
on intercourse with men, and appeared
to Adam in Paradise, and afterwards
to Abraham, &e. i. 284.
Proy. viii. 22. Mr. Keble’s allegation that
Catholic consent assures us “that Wis-
dom in the book of Proverbs is a name
of the Second Person in the Most Holy
Trinity,” unfounded, i. 342—344.
Isai. viii. 19. Means that for knowledge
of doubtful matters the Scriptures
must be more diligently studied, says
Jerome, ili. 264,
Isai. xii. 3. The wells of Salvation mean
the Holy Scriptures, says Cyril of
Alexandria, iii. 184.
Tsai. xx. 19, 20. God’s voice can be re-
cognised only in Scripture, ii. 127.
Jer. i.5. Children susceptible of spiritual
privileges, ii. 212.
Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. Children of those in
covenant belong to God, ii. 212.
Mal. i. 10, 11. Refers to the oblation of
the bread and wine to God as the first
0O
562
Sruits of his gifts, according to Ire-
nus, li. 370; to the offering of prayers
and thanksgivings, according to Justin
Mart., ii. 369, 370; and in a sense to
the bread and wine, according to same,
ii. 370, 371. ;
Matt.iv.1—10. Appeal to Written Word
as Rule, by our Lord, 1]. 71.
Matt. iv. 23. Public teaching not confined
in Synagogue to a distinct class,
li. 235.
Matt. xvi. 18. Does not refer to the
Church on earth, explained i. 110,
note; ii. 416, 417.
Matt. xxi.12. “ The Lord’s money is the
divine Scripture,” Ambrose, iii. 149.
Matt. xxii. 29. Scriptures referred to by
Christ as Rule, ii. 71.
Matt. xxv. 31 et seq. The righteous
do not “inherit the kingdom” till after
the Judgment, ii. 413.
Matt. xxviii. 19. Contains the rudiments
of the earliest Creeds, and from which
the Creed appears to have derived
its origin, i. 118; called by Athanasius
the summary of our faith, 1. 119; re-
ferred to by Lucian as the foundation
upon which the Creed was built, i. 120 ;
and by Gregory of Nyssa as containing
the whole mystery of true religion,
i. 120, 121; and by Augustine, as con-
taining in them the Creed, i. 121; and
by Hilary, as containing all that con-
cerns the mystery of the Salvation of
man, 7b.; and by Theodoret, the law
according to which the apostles and
teachers of the Church teach and bap-
t'ze, i. 122; called by Basil of Ceesarea
the tradition of baptism, iii. 138.
Mark vii.1—13. Tradition put in oppo-
sition to Scripture as Rule by our
Lord, ii. 71.
Mark x. 14—16. Willingness of Christ
to receive children among the number
of his people, ii. 211.
Mark xii. 26,27. Sadducees sent to Scrip-
ture as determining the doctrine of the
Resurrection, 11. 127.
Luke i. 4. Scripture designed to teach
the Christian religion, ii. 450.
Luke i. 1—4. Hence it follows, says
Bishop Taylor, that a book of Scrip-
ture can make a man certain and in-
structed in the whole Gospel of Christ,
iii. 459, 460.
Luke i. 15. Children susceptible of spi-
ritual privileges, ii. 212.
Luke iv. 15, 31—33, 44. Public teaching
in Synagogue not confined toa distinct
class, ii. 235.
Luke x. 25, 26. Scriptures of Old Testa-
ment referred to by our Lord as then
Rule of faith, ii. 71.
INDEX OF TEXTS CITED.
Luke xiv. 13, 14. The reward to be re-
ceived at the resurrection, ii. 414.
Luke xv. 23. Departed believers in a
state of rest and peace, ii. 415.
Luke xvi. 23. Soul ofrich man in Hades,
in torments, ii. 416.
Luke xvi. 29. Scriptures of Old Testa-
ment referred to by our Lord as then
Rule of Faith, ii. 71.
Luke xxiii. 43. Intermediate state of
rest, 11. 415.
Luke xxiv. 45. The testimony of Christ
received from Scripture through divine
illumination, ii. 449.
John i. 8. Quoted in a Creed given by
Tertullian, i. 140; referred to in the
Creed given by Origen, i. 141.
John iii. 5. Baptism in an ordinary way
(as circumcision) necessary to salvation,
ii. 210.
John iii. 5. Proves baptismal regene-
ration, according to Dr. Pusey, ii.
348, 349.
John iii. 18. Our Lord appeals to Scrip-
ture as Judge, ii. 127.
John v. 39. Appeal to Scriptures as Rule
by our Lord, ii. 71; Scriptures suf-
ficient to guide to the knowledge of
Christ, ii.446; Jews sent by our Lord
to Scripture for judgment respecting
his claims, ii. 127.
John v. 45—47. Unbelief of Jews con-
demned by writings of Moses, ii. 127,
128.
John x.1, Scripture the door, according
to Chrysostom, iii. 176.
John x. 30. The unity here spoken of
explained by some of the Fathers as
being a moral unity, with reference to
an agreement in will, &c., by others,
as a physical unity, with relation to
the divine nature and essence, i. 284-—
286.
John xii. 48. He that rejects Christ
judged by Scriptures, ii. 128.
Jobn xii. 48. The judgment in the last
day, ii. 414.
John xiv. 28. Different interpretations
given by the Fathers to this text,
which is sometimes applied by them to
the divine nature of Christ, sometimes
said to be only applicable to his human
nature, i. 286—290.
John xvi. 13. Proof that the Scriptures
are inspired from the promise of Christ,
ii. 26.
John xviii. 20. Public teaching in the
Synagogue not confined to a distinct
class, li. 235.
John xx. 19—23, 26. Custom of Primi-
tive Christians to assemble for worship
on first day of week, ii. 214, 215.
John xx. 81. Proves, says Bp. Taylor,
INDEX OF TEXTS CITED.
that Christians are to rely upon the
Word of God for a knowledge of the
way of salvation, ili. 460.
Acts ii. 27, 31. Christ’s soul in Hades
between his death and resurrection,
ii. 415.
Acts ii. 41. Baptism introductory to ad-
mission into the Church, ii. 212.
Acts vi. 4,6. Deacons ordained by impo-
sition of hands, ii. 237.
Acts viii. 4. Preaching and teaching not
confined to the ordained, ii. 234.
Acts viii. 31. Publication of Gospel en-
ables simplest now to understand what
the Eunuch could not, says Hooker,
iii. 389.
Acts viii. 37. The only Baptismal con-
fession recorded in Scripture, i. 117.
Acts ix. 20. Teaching in synagogue not
confined to one class, ii. 235.
Acts xi. 19—21. Preaching not confined
to the Clergy, ii. 234, 235.
Acts xiii. 5,15. Teaching in synagogue
not confined to one class, 11. 235.
Acts xiv. 23. Presbyters ordained by
Apostles, ii. 237.
Acts xvi. 4,6, 22,23. An order of Pres-
byters as well as Apostles, ii, 237.
Acts xvii. 2. Paul regsoned with the
Jews out of the Scriptures, thus show-
ing that they were Rule of faith, ii. 72.
Acts xvii.17. Bereans searched Scrip-
tures as Rule of Faith, 11. 72.
Acts xx. 6,7. Custom of disciples to meet
together on first day of the week,
ii. 215.
Acts xx. 17, 28—30. Overseers appointed
by the Holy Ghost over the flock,
ii. 233.
Acts xx. 17,28. Presbyters called bishops,
ii. 237.
Acts xxiv. 14. Law and Prophets cited as
Rule of faith, ii. 72.
Rom. i. 7. Epistle addressed to all the
Saints at Rome, ii. 451, 452.
Rom. i. 17. That faith must rest on
divine testimony, ii. 57.
Rom. ii. 6—16. Rewards and punish-
ments to be hereafter, ii. 414.
Rom. ii. 6—16. Souls of wicked reserved
for judgment, ii. 416.
Rom. iv. 3. Scriptures referred to by
St. Paul as Rule of Faith,-ii. 72.
Rom. vi. 3, 4. Baptism introductory to
admission into the Church, ii. 212.
Rom. xi. 2. Scriptures referred to by
St. Paul as Rule of Faith, ii. 72.
Rom. xv.4. The object for which Scrip-
tures were written, ii. 446.
1Cor. i. 21. “ By the foolishness of preach-
ing he means the plainness of the phra-
seology of the inspired Scriptures.”
Cyril of Alexandria, iii. 181.
563
1 Cor, ii. 13. The words of Scripture
those of the Holy Ghost, ii. 135.
1 Cor. v. 5. Spirit saved in the day of
the Lord, ii. 414.
1 Cor. v. 7, 8. The sacrifice having been
already offered, we keep the feast,
ii. 373.
1 Cor. vii. 14, Chiidren of Christians in
a different state from heathen, ii. 209.
1 Cor. x.15. Addressed to all in every
place that call on Christ, ii. 452.
1 Cor. xi. 17—20, 33. Celebration of
Eucharist one great object for which
disciples came together, ii. 215.
1 Cor. xi. 26. Shows the perpetual obli-
gation of the Eucharist, ii. 222, 223.
1 Cor. xii. 13. Baptism introductory to
admission into the Church, ii. 212.
1 Cor. xiv. 26—34. None but women
forbidden to teach in public assemblies,
ii. 235.
1 Cor. xv. 3. Mr. Newman assumes that
St. Paul is here quoting the Creed,
i. 108; such assumption proved to be
without foundation, i. 109.
1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. Allusion made to this
passage in a Creed given by Tertullian,
i. 140.
1 Cor. xv. 55. Resurrection of Saints,
victory over Hades, ii. 416.
1 Cor. xvi. 2. Alms of Christians laid up
for poor on first day of the week,
ii. 215.
2 Cor. iii.12. Scripture teaches the great
truths of the Gospel without conceal-
ment, 11. 450.
2 Cor. iv. 2, Essential truths delivered
in Scriptures as clearly as language
would permit, ii. 450.
2 Cor. v.10. Souls of wicked await the
Judgment, ii. 416.
Gal. iii. 29. Unbelievers condemned by
Scripture, ii. 127.
Gal. iv. 30. Scriptures referred to by
St. Paul as Rule of faith, ii. 72.
Eph. iv. 11—18. Distinction between
ministers and people, ii. 233.
Eph. vi. 19. Shows that St. Paul wished
to write, so as to make known the Gos-
pel, ii. 451.
Phil. i. 1. Who were the bishops and
deacons in the Church of Philippi,
ii. 240.
Phil. ii. 6. Interpreted by Fathers as by
moderns in opposite senses, in question
of Christ’s divinity, i. 290, 291.
Phil. ii. 10,11. Quoted in the Creed
given by Irenzeus, i. 139.
Phil. iv. 18. Apostle of Church of Phi-
lippi, ii. 240.
Col. ii. 3. “Either God the Word who
seems hidden in the flesh of Christ, or
the Holy Scriptures in which the
0 0 2
564:
knowledge of the Saviour is laid up,”
says Jerome, iii. 153, 154.
Col. ii. 12. Baptism introdnetory to ad-
mission into the Church, ii. 212.
Col. iv. 16. Shows Scripture to be written
_ for general instruction, ii. 452.
1 Thess. ii. 18. Declaration of St. Paul
proof of inspiration of Scriptures, ii. 26.
1 Thess. ii. 18. Word of God works ef-
fectually in believers, ii. 128, 129.
1 Thess. v. 12, 13. Ministers have over-
sight of flock, ii. 233.
1 Thess. vy. 27. Shows Scripture to be
written for general instruction, 11. 402.
2 Thess. i. 7, et seq. Rest to be at the
coming of Christ, ii. 414.
2 Thess. ii. 5,6. St. Paul appears to al-
lude to information given orally, ii. 64.
2 Thess. 11. 15. Traditions, oral instruc-
tion, no other books of New Testament
having been at that time written,
il. 79—81; traditions here mean the
doctrines which we now read in the
Holy Scriptures, says Bishop Patrick,
iii. 492, 493.
1 Tim. iii. 12. Presbyters in the Church
_ of Ephesus, ii. 238.
1 Tim. iii. 15. Proves Church to be m-
terpreter of Scripture according to
Mr. Newman, i. 174; his statement
reviewed, 7b.; passage refers to “the
Church essential,” says Dr. Chaloner,
ἐδ. ; the passage further explained,
and shown to convey no such sense as
Mr. Newman attaches to it, i. 175.
1 Tim. v.12,17. Presbyters were to pre-
side over particular jlocks, ii. 238.
1 Tim. v. 19—22. President or bishop in
Church of Ephesus distinct from Pres-
byters and Deacons, ii. 238.
1 Tim. vi. 12. The “ good confession”
said by Mr. Keble to mean the Apo-
stles’ Creed or some similar formula,
iii. 547; Theodoret understands it as
applying to his preaching, 7b.; does
not mean the Creed, 7d.
1 Tim. vi. 20. What was the deposit,
ii. 75, 78; not aprecise form of words,
iii. 547.
2 Tim. i. 13. Does not refer to the Apo-
stles’ Creed, as assumed by Mr. New-
man, 1. 109, 110.
2 Tim. i. 13. Mr. Newman’s mistake as
to the meaning of this passage, i. 108---
110; passage explained, i. 110; Mr.
Keble makes same mistake as Mr. New-
man, iii. 546.
2 Tim. i. 14, The deposit of the faith
committed to Timothy, ii. 75, 76.
2 Tim. ii. 2. Mr. Keble’s interpretation
of, examined, i. 75,76; the deposit,
according to Tertullian, was what Paul
was then writing, ii. 79.
INDEX OF TEXTS CITED.
2 Tim. iii. 14—16. Scripture referred to
as Rule of faith, 11. 72, 75.
2 Tim. iii. 14—17. Proves, according to
Bishop Taylor, that instruction by the
Holy Scriptures is the true principle,
the Apostolical way, the way of God,
the way of salvation, 111. 460.
2 Tim. iii. 15—17. Scripture designed to
be our great teacher, 11. 447, 448.
2 Tim. iv. 7,8. Crown given in the day
of Christ’s appearing, li. 414.
Tit. i. 5. Teachers set apart by Aposto-
lical authority, ii. 233 ; against parity
of ministers, according to Calvin,
ii. 242.
Tit. 1.5, 10—18. Titus commissioned to
perform the same duties at Crete as
Timothy at Ephesus, ii. 239.
Heb. ii. 4. Miracles testimony of divine
mission, il. 27.
Heb. x. 12, et seq. The Eucharist not a
propitiatory sacrifice, ii. 373.
Heb. xiii. 7. Rulers appointed in the
Church, ii. 233.
1 Pet. i. 4, 5,13. The Saints inherit the
kingdom after the appearing of Christ,
ii. 413.
1 Pet. i. 12. Declaration of St. Peter
proof of inspiration of Scriptures, ii. 26.
1 Pet. iv. 11. Injunction rests on suppo-
sition of the Supreme authority of Holy
Scripture as the Rule of faith and
its own interpreter, says Bishop Van
Mildert, iii. 514, 515.
1 Pet. v. 4. Crown given when Christ
appears, il. 414.
2 Pet. i. 20. “Interpretation” means
᾿ declaration of God’s will, ii. 450.
2 Pet. ii. 9. Souls of wicked reserved in
intermediate state for judgment, 11.416.
2 Pet. iii. 2. Proof ofinspiration of Scrip-
tures, 11, 26.
2 Pet. iii. 16. St. Paul’s writings being
ranked with “other Scriptures,” a
proof of their inspiration, ii. 26, 27.
2 Pet. iii. 16. Passages here spoken of
intended to be hard to be understood ;
meaning to be sought from Holy Spirit,
li. 449.
Rey. i. 10. First day of the week distin-
guished as the Lord’s Day, ii. 216.
Rey, i. 18. Christ has the keys of Hades,
ii. 416.
Rev. vi. 9—11. Souls of martyrs in a
state of consciousness and happiness,
ii. 415. ©
Rey. xi. 18. Reward given in day of
judgment, ii. 414.
Rev. xx. 13—15. At day of judgment,
Death and Hades deliver up dead,
and wicked are cast into lake of fire,
ii. 416.
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
Acosts, Jos., opinion of, that Scripture is
the best interpreter of Seripture, ii.461.
ALTARS, none among Christians accord-
ing to Bishop Stillingfleet, iii. 402;
word, only used metaphorically in early
times, ii. 367—369.
AMBROSE (a. 374.) first mentions the
name “the Apostles’ Creed,” i. 115;
compares the creed to the soldier’s sa-
crament (or oath) of warfare, i. 133;
Anastasius Sinaita mentions a corrup-
tion in the works of, i. 201; another
introduced by Gratian, i. 203 ; remark-
able confession of the Benedictine edi-
tors of Ambrose on his doctrine, and
that of other Fathers, respecting
the intermediate state, i. 282, 283;
opinion of, that doctrinal is the true
succession, ii. 340, 341; considered the
offermg in the Eucharist as that of
all that were present, ii. 399; opinion
of, that the direct benefit in the Eu-
charist was to be expected only by
communicants, li. 403; appeals to
Scripture as Rule, ili. 148—150; and
sufficiently clear to teach the Faith, iii.
261—264.
ANDREWS, BISHOP, answer of, to those
who denied salvation to non-episcopal
churches, ii. 298, 299.
ANGELS, of seven churches, bishops, ac-
cording to judgment of most eminent
divines, ii. 243, 244.
ANGLICANISM admitted by Mr. Newman
to be a middle path never yet realized
by any religious community, i. 52; a
theory which the Church of England
never recognised, i. 53.
ANoM2ANS, errors of, refuted by Epi-
phanius from Scripture, iii. 122.
ANTHONY, (a. 330.) appeals to Scripture
as sufficiently clear to teach the Faith,
iii. 243, 244.
ANTIQUITY, respecters of, erroneously re-
ferred to by Tractators, as necessarily
supporters of their system, iii, 321 ; ap-
peal of all Protestants to, according to
Bishop Morton, iii. 393; value of re-
cords of, according to Dr. Waterland,
iii. 511.
ANTIQUITY AND CATHOLICITY said to
be the real guides, i. 43; and that reason
is to submit to them in the interpreta-
tion of Scripture, i. 45.
APOCRYPHAL, on gospels, epistles, canons,
constitutions and liturgies, i. 106.
APOSTLES, successors of the, paramount
authority of the, in Church govern-
ment, specified by Mr. Keble as a reli-
gious truth not contained in Scripture,
iii. 480.
APOSTOLICAL. See TRADITION APOSTO-
LICAL.
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (so called)
creed contained in, i. 136, 137.
APposTorLicats, early heretics, i. 15.
Arians, the, offered to be tried by Tra-
dition, iti. 462.
ARIMINUM, (A. Ὁ. 359,) Council of, first
published in the creed the article on
Christ’s descent into hell, i. 137.
Arius condemned at Nice from Scrip-
ture, iii. 76.
ARTICLE, TWENTY-THIRD, misapprehen-
sion of, by Mr. Keble, 11, 287, 288; ex-
planation of, by Rogers, ii. 288; by
Bishop Burnet, ii. 289, 290; by Bp.
Tomline, ii. 290.
ARTICLES OF ΕἌΤΤΗ, Scripture proof the
ground on which to be believed, ac-
cording totheChurch of England, ii. 543.
ASTERIUS URBANUS, (a. 188) appeal of,
to Scripture as Rule, iii, 34, 35.
ATHANASIUS, (a. 326) says that the Scrip-
tures are of themselves sufficient, i. 61 ;
li. 189, 190; uses the word Tradition
for Scripture, i. 72, 73; iii. 5; con-
siders the rudiments of the creeds to
be contained in the words of our Lord,
(Matt. xxviii. 19, 20), 1. 118, 119;
these words he calls the summary of
our faith, 7b., and says that the Creed
is contained in them, i. 121; his epistle
to Epictetus corrupted, according to
Cyril of Alexandria, i. 199 ; pronounces
the baptism of the Arians as well as
566
that of the Manichees, the Phrygians,
and the Samosateniaus to be ‘alto-
gether useless and unprofitable,” i. 320;
his account of the mode of proceed-
ing at Council of Nice, iii. 71—73, 91;
appeals to Scripture as Rule, iii. 100—
110; and sufficiently clear to teach the
Faith, iii. 239—243.
ATHENAGORAS, unorthodox doctrine of, as
it respects the divinity and generation
of Christ, i. 236.
AUGUSTINE, (a. 396) says that the Creed
was composed from the Scriptures, i.
116, 142; the credit which he attached
to the writers of the Church, i. 160;
corruption in a passage of, i. 204; ano-
ther instance, apparently, in the Popish
editions, i. 207, 208; receives no doc-
trine propounded by uninspired authors,
except proved from the Scriptures, or
by reason, i. 268; held that the bap-
tism of heretics was not valid if not
performed in the name of the Trinity,
but that if so performed it was valid,
whatever sentiments they might hold,
i. 320; maintains apostolicity of the
custom he followed, upon grounds not
trustworthy, i. 320—322; testimony
of, that the writings of Matthew, Mark,
and Luke received apostolical sanction,
ii. 31, 32; appeal of, to Scripture as of
supreme authority, ii. 130,131; argu-
ment of, that the doctrine of consub-
stantiality of the Son is found in Scrip-
ture, ii. 187—189; also of divinity of
Holy Ghost, ii. 189; opinion of, that
doctrinal is the true succession, ii. 341 ;
repudiates authority of all but the
canonical authors, iii. 14, 16, 17; ap-
peals to Scripture as Rule and Judge
of controversies, ili. 157—171, 215—
219; and sufficiently clear to teach the
Faith, iii. 267—273; holds that be-
lief in inspiration of Scripture is not
founded on Patristical Tradition, iii.
307—311; did not believe that Mary
always remained a Virgin, ii. 431, 432.
Bacon, Lorp, complains that some denied
the validity of the Orders of Ministers
of non-episcopal churches, ii. 297.
BaNcroOFt, ABP., view of, that ordination
by presbyters was sometimes lawful,
nl. 280.
Baptism, confession required in antient
church at, i. 117—123; form of, con-
tained in the (so-called) Apostolical
constitutions, i. 136, 137; interroga-
tion at, originally distinct from the
confession required to be made at the
moment of immersion, i. 136; after-
wards incorporated into the creed, 74. ;
profession made at, i. 137; lawful use
of cross in, iii. 328.
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
Baptism, INFANT, a necessary deduction
from Scripture according to Hooker,
ii. 212; to Bishop Stillingfleet, ii. 213,
214; defended by Cyprian, not by
the authority of Tradition, but by
Scripture, iii. 66; doctrine of, derived
from Scripture, ili. 454; concluded
directly out of Scripture, according to
Archbishop Laud and Bishop Stilling-
fleet, iii. 480; specified by Mr. Keble
as a religious truth not contained in
Scripture, iii. 480; confirmed by the
practice of the church from apostoli-
cal times, ἐδ. ; may be proved out of
the Scriptures, ili. 497 ; called by some
of the Fathers an apostolical tradition,
iii. 497.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, question of,
has no place in discussion respecting
claims of Tradition, as Dr. Pusey says
that John iii. 5 is sufficient to prove
it, ii. 348, 349.
BaRnaBas, epistle of, said to have been
corrupted, i. 197.
Barrow, Dr., says that in the more
antient times there was no one form of
creed fixed and agreed upon, i. 123.
Basti OF CzSAREA (a. 370) gives a
summary of the creed taken professedly
from Scripture, i. 120; forgeries upon
a large scale suspected to have been
committed in the book of, on the Holy
Spirit, i. 201, 202; denies that a de-
livery of the orthodox faith by the
Catholic Fathers, as a body, could be
found in the writings of those Fathers,
even in his time, i. 233; says that all
Srom the beginning rejected the bap-
tism of heretics, i. 320; holds that
Mary did not always remain a virgin,
ii. 427; appeals to Scripture as Rule
and Judge, iii. 128—140; discourse
on Tradition, attributed to him,a coun-
terfeit, i. 201, 202; iii. 134—137; re-
fers to Tradition only as confirmatory of
what he deduced from Scripture, iii. 139.
BE.ieF, duty of unhesitating, on insuf-
ficient grounds, according to Tracta-
tors, iii. 544, 545.
BELLARMINE defines Tradition as that
which is delivered, whether in writing
or orally from one to another, i. 8;
considers Apostolical tradition unwrit-
ten equivalent to the written word, i.
79; his rule for ascertaining such tra-
ditions, i. 80; he asserts that God’s
revelation made to the Church is dis-
tributed into two partial rules, Scrip-
ture and Tradition, i. 85; does not
professedly admit any tradition against
Scripture,i.87; saysthatScripture,from
its ambiguity and obscurity,is not suffi-
cient alone, i. 89, 93, 94 ; that tradition
is necessary, because there are many
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
points which we ought not to be igno-
rant of, and which yet are not con-
tained in Scripture, i. 92; that it is
only by the testimony of patristical
tradition that we are assured of the in-
spiration of Scripture, &e., i. 94, 95;
his explanation of what is meant by the
infallibility of the Church, i. 167; is
forced constantly to acknowledge the
disagreement of the Fathers on impor-
tant points, i. 337.
BERTRAM, expurgation of passage oppo-
sing Romish error, i. 210.
BIBLE, said not to carry with it its own
interpretation, i. 25; not to be our
sole rule of faith, i. 28.
ΒΙΒΙΙΒΤ, a name given by the Romanists
to the Reformed, i. 61.
BINGHAM, opinion of, that Episcopal
government not necessary to constitute
true church, ii. 320.
Bisuops acted in conjunction with their
presbyters, according to Field, ii. 245 ;
to Usher, ii. 245; superior to presby-
ters only in matter of ordination, ac-
cording to Chrysostom, ii. 262, 263;
called presbyters by Irenzus, ii. 263,
264; opinion of scholastic divines on
difference between presbyters and, ii.
264, 265; government by, said by Bing-
ham not to be necessary to constitute a
true Church, ii. 320; Tractarian doc-
trine respecting position and powers in
the Church of, discussed, ii. 247—346,
BRAMHALL, ABP., did not deem all
but episcopal orders invalid, ii. 299
—302,
BrinGceEs, DEAN, opinion of, that form of
Church government leftto each church,
ll. 302.
BULLINGER, admits that the bread and
wine may, in one sense, be oblations,
ii. 374, 375.
BuRNET, Bp., explanation of 23rd Ar-
ticle, ii. 289, 290; testimony of, that
presbyterian clergy, joining our
church, needed not re-ordination, ii.
294,
Butter, ΒΡ., argument of, misappre-
hended by Mr. Newman, ii. 49—52.
CxSAREA, creed of the Church of, i. 130,
131. j
CALVIN, assertion of, from Tit. i. 5, that
there was not an equality among mi-
nisters, ii. 242.
Canon OF SCRIPTURE, no part of the,
has perished, ii. 449; tradition said
by Mr. Keble to be the test of admis-
sion into the, ii. 33; entrusted to the
fidelity of the Church according to
Bishop Patrick, iii. 502.
Canon of the Church of England, of 1571,
relating to preachers, does not support
567
Tractators’ view, iii. 323—328; Dr.
Waterland’s explanation of, iii. 324,
325; nor does 30th of 1603, iii. 323,
329.
Canonicity of Seripture said to rest on
the testimony of Patristical Tradition,
i. 30, 37; this point answered in
chapter vi.; Bishop Taylor on the, iii.
469—471.
CASAUBON, assertion of, that bishops,
priests, and deacons founded on Scrip-
ture, ii. 242.
Catena of Mr. Keble, iii. 320—323.
CATHOLIC, a word not found in the most
antient Creeds both of the Greek and
Roman churches—having been after-
wards added by the Greeks, i. 138.
CatHotic Consent. See Consent.
CatTHotic TrapiTion. See Tradition.
CAVE, on the dispute respecting the time
of observing Easter, i. 309—312.
CHALONER, Dr., testimony of, that Scrip-
ture is the best interpreter of Scripture,
ii. 474, 475.
CHRISTIANS, according to Hooker, they
who hold “one Lord, one faith, one
baptism,” ii. 326, 327; children of,
in different state from heathen, ii. 209.
CHRYsosToM, (a. 398) treatment of his
Epistle to Cesarius by the Romanists,
i. 191—193; erasure by Romanists in
some MSS. of a famous passage in the
“ imperfect work of Matthew,” attri-
buted to, i. 208, 209; statement ina
work attributed to, that true Church
-is to be ascertained through the Scrip-
tures, ii. 342, 343; speaks of the offer-
ing in the Eucharist, as that which was
offered by the soul, ii. 400; says that
the prayer of thanksgiving in the Eu-
charist is common both to the people
and the priest, ii. 402, 403; opinion
of, that the direct benefit of the Eu-
charist was received only by communi-
cunts, ii. 408; appeals to Scripture as
Rule and Judge, iii. i72—181 ; and suf-
ficiently clearto teach the Faith, iii. 274
—281 ; holds that belief in inspiration
of Scripture is not founded on Patris-
tical Tradition, iii. 311, 312.
CxuurcuH, Mr. Keble’s view on the sub-
ject of the, i. 38, 39; authority of,
explained by Leslie, i. 173, 174; au-
thority of, not divine, according to
Archbishop Land, iii. 402, 403; the
majority of the visible, not always the
representatives of the true, i. 177, 178 ;
inadequacy of remaining records to
show faith of whole Primitive, i. 183
—213; both the Roman and Tractarian
system founded upon one and the same
error, as to the nature of the, i. 444;
what is essential to the being of a,
according to Dr, Clagett, ii. 324; the
568 INDEX OF
true notion ofa, that they profess the
faith, and are united to Christ by bap-
tism, according to Dean Sherlock, ii.
331; personal succession not a neces-
sary sign of the true, according to
Archbishop Laud, ii. 335,336; said to be
ascertained through the Scriptures, ina
work attributed to Chrysostom, li. 342,
343; testimony ofthe, not the ground
onwhich doctrines are to be believed, iii.
18; cannot teach as “the Church,” 726.;
cannot be represented, iii. 18, 19; can
require no doctrine as a doctrine of
faith unless contained in Scripture, iii.
425; has no power of infallible judg-
ment according to Bishop Patrick, iii.
495; no article of faith rested by an-
tients upon testimony of, nor upon any
thing besides Scripture, according to
Dr. Waterland, iii. 506; right to de-
clare what is the written and unwritten
word, claimed for, by Dr. Trevern,
Bishop of Strasbourg, iti. 526, 527;
faith to be given to the teaching of the,
from Tradition, according to the Trac-
tators, iii. 544; the authority of, the
first outward motive leading men to
esteem of the Scriptures, according
to Hooker, iii. 390, 391; to be known
in the times of Antichrist, only throngh
the Scriptures, according to Chry-
sostom, iii. 176; nature of the, as
described by our Lord, iii. 530; early
corruption of the, i. 402, et seq. ;
the progress of error in the, in the
fourth and fifth centuries still greater
and more fatal, i. 410, 411; errors
maintained from the beginning in
what was called the Catholic, i. 411
----414.
Cuurcu, UNIVERSAL (or) CATHOTIC, to
the decisions of the, we are said by Dr.
Pusey to owe faith, i. 38; said by Mr.
Newman to be divinely guided to teach
the truth, i. 39, 40; said to be a witness
and keeper of Catholic Tradition, i. 42 ;
said to be the organ of antiquity and
catholicity, i. 43, 44; the means of
teaching us the true doctrine pointed
out by Catholic Tradition as the mean-
ing of Scripture, i. 45 ; who constitute
the Catholic Church, unknown to the
Tractators, i. 47; all the promises of
Christ to the, would be fulfilled by the
existence of a succession of individuals
in the external Church attached to the
true faith, i. 170; this admitted by Mr.
Newman, 7. ; the, Dean Sherlock says,
cannot be represented, i. 168; is, ac-
cording to him, the whole number of
Christians all the world over, i. 169 ;
“the Catholic Church’’ in the Creed,
according to Bishop Morton, is the
succession of the true believers, the
MATTERS DISCUSSED.
faithful people of God, i. 171; accord-
ing to S. Gregory, the elect unto
eternal life, i. 172; according to Ire-
nus, those who have received adop-
tion, 7. ; according to the language of
our own Church, the blessed company
of all faithful people, 2b.
CHURCH, THE TRUE, what, according
to Bishop Taylor, i. 170; according to
Bishop Sanderson, i. 171 ; according to
Dr. Chaloner, ἐδ. ; according to Bishop
Morton, ἐδ. ; according to Irenzns, i.
172; according to our own Church, id.
CHURCH GOVERNMENT, Archbishop
Whitgift on, ii. 272—274; Bishop
Cooper on, ii. 274, 275.
CuurcH, INFALLIBILITY OF, Bellar-
mine’s explanation of the, i. 167 ; sense
in which it may be admitted, i. 169,
172; Mr. Newmanasserts that English
Church holds the, “in matters of sav-
ing faith,” i. 173.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND to be considered
by Anglicans, according to Mr. New-
man, as the representative of the
Church universal, i. 48; refers to
Scripture as the ultimate authority for
our faith, i. 50; does not hold that
Scripture is so obscure that it needs
tradition to interpret it, i. 50 ; does not
claim obedience to herself as infallible,
2b.; does not forbid the exercise of pri-
vate judgment, 2b.; divided by the
Tractators into three principal par-
ties, the Apostolicals, the Latitudi-
narians, and the Puritans, i. 52; re-
quires some support from Patristical
testimony of first five or six centuries,
for any point put forth as fundamental,
i. 214; on what ground this authority
given, i. 215; why called Church of
Traditioners by the Puritans, ii. 168 ;
takes middle course between Romanists
and Nonconformists, ii. 203; view of,
on Apostolical succession, ii. 248, 249;
communion service of, said to be a
judgment on the Church, by Mr.
Froude, ii. 363; commemoration of
dead by, ii. 419; nature of the appeal
to Patristical Tradition made by, iii.
17, 18, 477, 478; Rule of faith as held
by, ili. 318, et seq. ; does not rest the in-
spiration and genuineness of Scripture
on Church Tradition, iii. 363, 364;
makes Seripture the ground upon
which any article of the Christian
faith is to be believed, iii. 543; does
not demand obedience as an authorita-
tive and infallible teacher of divine
truth, iii. 544.
CHURCH OF ScornaND, said by Arch-
bishop Tenison to be as true a Church
as that of England, ii. 321.
CHURCHES OP FRANCE AND HOLLAND,
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 569
true churches according to Archbishop
Usher, ii. 305, f
CuuRCHES, Protestant, Archbishop
Secker would live in friendship with
all, ii. 322.
CHURCHES, REFORMED, FOREIGN, vali-
dity of orders in, defended by Arch-
deacon Mason, ii. 281—284; admitted
by Bishop Hall, ii. 281, 282 ; members
of, acknowledged as brethren by Bishop
Davenant, ii. 306; spoken of in fra-
ternal terms by Archbishop Sancroft,
ii. 321; and by Archbishop Wake, ii.
321, 322; high respect expressed for,
by Archbishop Howley in conjunction
with his brother bishops, ii. 323.
CLAGETT, Dr., remarks of, as to claims of
Christ’s ministers not affecting question
of Rule of faith, ii. 121—124; claims
right of private judgment, ii. 156, 157 ;
statement of, as to what is essential to
the being of a church, ii. 324.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, (a. 192) de-
nies in effect the doctrine of original
sin, i. 274; doctrine of, as to the inter-
mediate state, i. 279; appears to have
agreed with Cyprian in opinion as to
the rebaptizing of heretics, i. 316 ; tells
us that our Lord preached only onze
year, i. 325; accused the heretics of
mutilating Scripture, i. 371; shows
that the notion prevalent at his time
was not in favor of the perpetual vir-
ginity of the mother of our Lord, ii.
432, 433 ; appeal of, tothe Scripture as
Rule and Judge, iii. 44—53 ; and sufli-
ciently clear to teach the faith, iii. 229
—232; opinion of, that belief in inspira-
tion of Scripture is not founded on Pa-
tristical Tradition, iii. 300—302 ; testi-
mony of, as to the fulness and sufficiency
of Scripture, and its being the Rule of
judging the controversies of faith, ac-
cording to Bishop Taylor, iii. 460, 461.
CLEMENT OF Rome, testimony of, that
Christians met at stated times by the
commandment of the Lord, ii. 219, 220.
CLERGY put in the place of Christ by
Tractators, iii. 536, 537; put forward
by Tractators, as the depositaries of
Tradition, iii. 540; destinction between
the laity and the, of what kind, ii. 232
— 236. .
CoONCILIAR DECISIONS, Fathers at vari-
ance in, i. 332—337 ; Council of Nice
contradicted by more numerous Council
of Ariminum and Seleucia, i. 332, 333 ;
second Council of Ephesus (449), and
Council of Chalcedon (451), opposed to
each other, i. 333; second Council of
Ephesus as much a General Council as
those so called, i, 333—336.
CONFERENCE held at Westminster, iii.
344.
CONFESSIONS, PUBLIC, none of particular
churches in primitive times, such as
that of English Church to guide us,
much less of the Catholic Church, i.
179.
CoNsECRATION, by Apostolical authority,
essential to the participation of the
Eucharist, said to be taught by Tradi-
tion, ii. 225—232; priestly, of elements,
not essential in primitive Church ac-
cording to Erasmus, ii. 231, 232.
Consent, CarHoxic, Apostolical tra-
dition and, used by Tractators as con-
vertible terms, i. 11; a divine informant,
and entitled to equal respect with the
Holy Scriptures, according to the
Tractators, i. 36; this point an-
swered in chapter v. not a reality, 1.17 ;
meaning of, as used by the Tractators,
i. 75; admissions of the Tractators
respecting, fatal to their cause, i. 163 ;
rule given for ascertaining, i. 156, 157 ;
no degree of, is worthy of being con-
sidered a divine informant, i. 160, 165
—183 ; considered to be binding upon
the conscience, i. 157; period during
which it is supposed to extend, i. 161;
foundation of Tractators’ system, that
Catholic consent of the whole primitive
Church, for several centuries, proves
truth so supported to be from the
Apostles, i. 165 ; it was by the Catholic
consent of the Church in his day that
our blessed Lord was crucified, i. 177;
nothing which could claim to be con-
sidered the voice of the Catholic Church
until we come to the Council of Nice,
i. 179; the early Fathers themselves
could not tell what was the faith of
“the Church,” when “the Church”
had not publicly defined it, ἐδ. ; cannot
be proved from the writings of the first
three centuries, on account of their
paucity, i. 1S4—187 ; and because such
writings only remain to us as the ruling
party in the Church has allowed to be
preserved, i. 187—193; and because
the works of the Fathers have been
mutilated and corrupted, and works
forged in their name, i. 193—213; of
the writings of the first five or six cen-
turies upon any point admitted to bea
Sundamental article, would, in all pro-
bability, represent the true faith, i.
213; claimed, at the commencement
of the third century, as favorable to
the heresy of Artemon, i. 225—227 ;
claimed by Origen for unorthodox doe-
trine, i. 227; inquiry into claim of, as
to the doctrine of the Trinity, i. 229—
274; and that of the divinity of the
Holy Spirit, i. 229—234 ; and that of
the divinity and generation of Christ,
570
i. 234—272; no claim to, made by the
Nicene Council and Athanasius, for the
doctrine established at Nice, i. 264; as
claimed by the Tractators, disproved
from fact, that the Fathers when as-
sembled in Councils, did not come to
same determinations, i. 332—336 ; not
in writings of the Fathers, shown by
the statements of some of the best
authors, both among the Protestants
and Romanists to this effect, i. 337—
339; and by the way in which the
Fathers are quoted by all sides and all
parties, as, more or less, some or other,
favorable to their views, i. 339—348 ;
that which the Tractators practically
rely upon to prove, is often the dictum
of some half a dozen Fathers, i. 345;
admitted by Bellarmine that of doctrine
supported by, “an example is hardly
to be found,” i. 345 ; even in the writ-
ings that remain to us, not to be ex-
pected, i. 348—354; the notion of the
existence of, on the face of it most-im-
probable, i. 354; in the want of, no-
thing to show that the promises of
Christ have failed, i. 354; the value of
such as is attainable, i. 355, et seq.;
the Tractators compelled to admit the
uncertainty of, i. 367; what is so
called by the Tractators, is not treated
by themselves in many cases as afford-
ing any sufficient proof of the doctrines
so supported, i. 387—401 ; ποῦ ἃ divine
informant, shown by Fathers, 11]. 11,
et seq. ; no claims to, made by Fathers,
lil, 15,16; no part of the Rule of faith
according to our Church, iii. 355; not
recognised in our Church, iii. 356. See
Tradition.
Consent, Unantmous, of doctors, ac-
cording to the Tractators, is “the
consent of a number,” i. 361.
CONSTANTINE, EMPEROR, appeal of, to
the Scriptures as Rule of faith, at the
Council of Nice, ili. 70, 71.
CONSTANTINOPLE, the Council of, decrees
rebaptization for some heretics, but not
all, i. 319.
Constitutions of Clement of Rome,
corruptions said to have been intro-
duced into them by heretics, i. 197.
CONSUBSTANTIAL, a word only equivalent
tothat whichisclearly expressedin Scrip-
ture, ili. 68—71, 72, 82—85, 90—92;
the meaning of, delivered in the Serip-
ture according to Hilary of Poictiers,
iii. 120; also Epiphanius, iii. 128; St.
Augustine, ii. 185; 111. 162; meaning
of term, found in Scripture, avcording
to Ambrose, ili. 149, 150.
CoNSUBSTANTIALITY of the Son, doctrine
of the, clearly delivered in Scripture
according to the Fathers, ii. 184, 185;
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
as for instance, Dionysius of Alexandria,
ἐδ. ; Epiphanius, ii. 185 ; Ambrose, 20. ;
Augustine, 185, 188, 9; Chrysostom,
iii. 175; Cyril of Alexandria, 111. 185 ;
Theodoret, iii. 192, 193; determined
at Nice, according to Bishop Taylor,
not by Tradition but by Scripture, iii.
462; no clear tradition for it according
to same, ib.
CONTROVERSIES, all, referred to the Scrip-
tures by Bishop Jewel, iii, 341—343.
See JUDGE.
CoorEr, Bp., view of, on Church Go-
vernment, li. 274, 275.
Costx, ΒΡ., testimony of, that Pres-
byterian clergy joining our Church,
needed not re-ordination, ii. 292, 293;
does not deny the validity of orders
in non-episcopal churches, ii. 308—
313.
Cosmas INDICOPLEUSTES, (a. 353) ap-
peals to Scripture as Rule, iii. 208.
CounciL, GENERAL, none truly so for
the first three centuries, i. 181, 349;
Bishop Stillingfleet questions whether
there ever was such a Council, ἐὖ. ;
Archbishop Tenison says, “ There never
was yet an universal Council properly
so called,” i. 182; none, representing
the Church, for more than three cen-
turies after the time of our Lord’s
incarnation, i. 349.
CoUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, in 381,
shown by, that appeal to Fathers as
judge was not doctrine of Church,
lil. 16,
Councin oF ΝΊΟΕ, (a. 325) account of
proceedings at, iii. 69—100; referred
to Scripture as authority and Rule, ἐδ.
CounciLs, forgeries of the acts and canons
of the early, i. 209.
CouNciIts, GENERAL, contradict each
other, i. 186; decrees of, not held by
our Church as in themselves, and in-
trinsically, of authority binding the
conscience, iii. 347; to be examined by
Scripture, ii. 347, 348; our Church
holds they may err, iii. 347; Church
not bound by authority of, iii. 348; de-
crees of first four received by our
Church, iii. 349—351; the decrees of
the first four made by Justinian part
of the civil code, iii. 352.
CREED, THE, said to be a first principle,
i. 25 ; misinterpreted, as much as Scrip-
ture, by the Socinians, i. 26; article on
Church in, misinterpreted by Tracta-
tors, i 55; exposition of, by Rufinus,
i. 56; for more than three centuries, in
the opinion of Erasmus, extended no
further than profession of belief in the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, i. 133;
according to Bishop Stillingfleet, the
earliest Christian Church knew of no
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
other as necessary to baptism than that
of belief in the doctrine of the Trinity
contained in the words of Christ,
(Matt. xxviii. 19, 20), i. 123; extent
of, originally, according to L’ Estrange,
i. 123; do. according to Vossius, i. 133 ;
not a selection of the fundamentals of
the faith, i, 146—154; a summary
taken from Scripture according to
Thomas Aquinas, ii. 469; uses and
advantages of, ii. 471, 472; articles
of, derived from Scripture, iii. 129,
130.
CREED, various forms of the, as given by
Trenezus, i. 111, 112; as given by Ter-
tullian, i. 112, 113; as given ina work
attributed to Origen, i. 128; as given
by Gregory of Neocesarea, ib. ; by Lu-
cian the Martyr, i. 129, 130; of the
Church of Cesarea, i. 130, 131; as
published by the Council of Nice, i.
131, 132; as given by Origen, i. 216
—220; iii. 58, 59.
CREED, THE APOSTLES’, claimed by Mr.
Newman, on insufficient grounds, as of
Apostolical origin and authority, i. 107 ;
proof that such claim is without foun-
dation, i. 107 ; no precise form of words
was left by the Apostles as the Chris-
tian creed, i. 107—116; cannot be
traced higher in its present form than
the fourth century, i. 110; the forms
given in the early writers vary much
from this, and among themselves,
i. 110—113; no recognition of any
Apostolical form by the Nicene Council,
i. 114; not composed by the Apostles,
for then it would have formed a por-
tion of the Canonical Scriptures, and
would not have required to be proved
by the Fathers, from the writings of the
Apostles, i. 114; no report ofits having
been composed by the Apostles till the
close of the fourth century, i. 115;
Augustine does not even give it the
name of “the Apostles’ Creed,” i. 116;
no definite summary of the chief articles
of belief given by the Apostles as “the
Creed,” i. 116—127 ; the form received
by us under this title is merely the
antient Creed of the Church of Rome,
i. 117, 124; Jerome’s remark respect-
ing, said by Du Pin to mean merely
that it contained the Apostolical faith,
i. 116; appears to have derived its
origin from the direction of our Lord,
(Matt. xxviii. 19,) i. 118; these words
called by Athanasius the summary of
our faith, i. 119; and referred to by
Lucian as the foundation upon which
the Creed was built, i. 120; and by
Gregory of Nyssa, as containing the
whole mystery of true religion, 7.;
and by Augustine, as containing in
571
them the Creed, i. 121; and by Hilary,
as containing all that concerns the
mystery of the salvation of man, (he
calls them the heavenly rule,) i. 121;
and by Theodoret, the law according to
which the Apostles and the teachers of
the Church teach and baptize, i. 122; if
there had been a fixed and definite
summary, there would not have been
so great a variation in the creeds given
by the early writers, i. 124; from the
time of Erasmus few authors have
maintained the opinion that the Apo-
stles’ Creed was, strictly speaking,
an Apostolical formula, i. 126; has no
more right to the title than the creeds
of the Oriental churches, i. 126, 127;
gradually attained its present form,
the two last articles not having been in-
serted before the fourth century, i. 127
—139; much that was afterwards in-
corporated into the Creed was origin-
ally introduced as an interrogation at
baptism, i. 136; the article relating to
Christ’s descent into hell, was not in-
troduced until after the fourth century,
i. 137; Bishop Taylor’s view of, iii.
451; first asserted by Rufinus to have
been written by the Apostles, ii. 115,
116. See AMBROSE.
CREED, BapTIsMAL, original, what, i.
116, 117; the only one recorded in
Scripture that of the Ethiopian Eu-
nuch, i. 117.
CREED, THE NICENE or Constantinopo-
litan, appealed to by Theodoret as a
proof of his orthodoxy, iii. 193 ; nothing
in, but what is to be found in the Bible
according to Bishop Patrick, iii. 496,
CREED, RELATING TO THE TRINITY, a
distinction between the, and the whole
confession required at baptism for more
than three centuries, i. 137.
CreEeEps, Apostles’, Nicene, and Athana-
sian, received by our Church, not on
the ground of Catholic Consent, but
because they can be proved by Scrip-
ture, ill. 346 ; the, of Cesarea and Jeru-
salem the most antient extant, i. 126 ;
each of the, is an exposition of the
faith as supposed to be delivered by the
Apostles, i. 127, 139.
CREEDS, THE ANTIENT, consideration of,
i, 106—154 ; derived originally from
the Holy Scriptures, i. 139—144;
none of them an Apostolical produc-
tion, i. 144; received by us only as
proved by Scripture, i. 181; place nar-
row limits to the doctrines for which
consent of early Church was originally
claimed, i. 223 ; principal value of, lies
in the testimony they bear to the
genuineness of the writings of the
New Testament, i. 224.
572 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
Customs, Apostolicity of, burthen of
proof of, thrown by St. Augustine in
some places on Scripture, iii. 216, 217;
sanctioned by Ecclesiastical usage to
be regarded by individuals as equiva-
lent to a law, li. 217, 218.
Customs, TRADITIONARY, of different
Churches to be regarded, according to
Jerome, as Apostolical Laws, iii. 214.
CYPRIAN, (a. 248) by the expression,
Evangelical tradition, means the Gos-
pel, i. 73; intimates that in addition
to profession of faith in the Trinity, at
baptism, mention was made of the
Church, i. 134; treatise “On the
Unity of the Church,” corruption of,
in the Edition of Manutius in 1564,
i. 203; tract “On the Advantages of
Patience,” corruption of, by Pamelius,
i. 204; clear testimony of, to the or-
thodox doctrine concerning the Holy
Spirit, i. 229; belief of, as to the state
after death, i. 281; held necessity of
rebaptization of those baptized by here-
ties, i. 312, 313; denies antiquity of
custom pleaded on other side, i. 314;
held that Scripture only could certify
us of what the Apostles delivered,
i. 317; uses the word Tradition for
Scripture, ii. 3 ; appeal to Scripture
as Rule and Judge, iii. 60—67, 212;
and sufficiently clear to teach the
Faith, iii. 237; considered the people
as much sacrificers as the priest, ii.
386.
Cyrit oF ALEXANDRIA, (a. 412) uses the
phrase Evangelical traditions to ex-
press the Gospels, i. 73; refers to the
Creed as consisting of belief in the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, i. 132;
his books said to have been falsified by
a follower of Severus, i. 196; testimo-
nies that his works were corrupted
after his death, i. 200; appeals to
Scripture as Rule and Judge, iii. 18 1—
—187; and sufficiently clear to teach
the Faith, iii. 281—283.
Cynit OF JERUSALEM, (a. 350) his refe-
rence to the symbol of the holy faith
and the confession required at baptism,
i. 136, 137; says they obtained from
the Divine Scriptures the proof for
each one of the Articles contained in
the Creed, i. 142; uses the word Tra-
dition for Scripture, iii. 3; appeals to
Scripture as Rule, iii. 110—114; and
sufficiently clear to teach the Faith,
ἢ]. 244, 245.
DaveEnant, Bp., opinion of, that or-
ders by Presbyters in some cases are
not invalid, ii. 306; acknowledgment
of, of members of Reformed Churches
as brethren, id.
DEAD, COMMEMORATION OF, Archbishop
Usher on, ii. 417, 418, 420; Church
of England on, ii. 419.
DFAD, PRAYING FOR, said by Bp. Mortonto
be only congratulations for present joys
and hopes of resurrection, ii. 411, 418;
advocated by Chrysostom, iii. 180.
DEFECTIVENESS of Scripture as a Rule
of faith, alleged, i. 36; this point
answered in chapter ix.
De Lavnez, DR.,a Presbyterian, admitted
to a benefice in our Church without
re-ordination, li. 292, 293.
Deposita Doemata, supposed, not mat-
ters of faith, but either rituai traditions
or matters of order, according to
Bishop Stillingfleet, iii. 481.
DEVELOPMENT, theory of, Mr. Newman
has adopted, in the place of the doc-
trine of “Catholic consent,” i. 440—
444; a convenient defence for the ad-
ditions of the Church of Rome to the
primitive Creed, i. 442; illustration
of, in case of alleged doctrine of per-
petual virginity of the Virgin Mary,
li. 436, 437.
Dionysius OF ALEXANDRIA, (a. 247)
orthodox doctrine of, as it respects the
Divinity and generation of Christ,
i. 245—247; charged with error by
Basil and Gennadius, i. 265, 266;
agrees with Cyprian and Synod of Car-
thage, on the re-baptizing of heretics,
1. 315; appeals to Scriptures as Rule,
iii. 60.
Dionysius oF CorintHu, Epistles of, cor-
rupted in his life-time, i. 198.
Dioscorts, the partizans of, said to have
corrupted the worksoftheFathers,i.197.
DISSENTERS, case of, stated, ii. 327—332.
Doctrring®, varieties of, one of the tests
to which the faith of believers is sub-
jected, iii. 532.
DOCTRINES OF RELIGION, known only
by Divine revelation, i. 3.
Donatists, the, and other heretics, op-
posed by the Scriptures by St. Augus-
tine, iii. 160, 163—166.
Dovsr implied in Christian faith, ac-
cording to the Tractators, i. 76; our
portion in this life, according to Mr.
Newman, ii. 46.
DownaMe, ΒΡ., admits that in certain
cases Presbyters may ordain, ii. 307,308.
Dv PrN supposes that the expression of
Jerome respecting the Apostles’ Creed,
meant merely that the Creed contained
the Apostolical faith, i. 116.
EASTER, difference of early Church as to
the time of observing, iil. 483.
ECCLESIASTICAL RULE, the, according to
Clement of Alexandria, “the consent
and harmony of the law and prophets,
with the covenant delivered at the
advent of our Lord,” iii, 232.
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 573
EPIPHANtIvs, (a. 368) is against the notion
of Mary's remaining always a virgin,
li. 428, 431, 433, 435; uses the word
- Tradition for Scripture, ili. 5; appeals
to Scripture as Rule and Judge, iii.
120—126; refers to Tradition for some
Ecclesiastical rites and forms, iii. 124
—126; holds that Scripture is suffi-
ciently clear to teach the Faith, ii.
251—258.
Erur@=M Syrvs, (a. 370) appeals to
Scripture as Rule, iii. 147; and suffi-
ciently clear to teach the Faith, iii.
259—261.
Episcopacy, Scriptural authority for,
according to Luther, ii. 242; of Divine
right according to Scultetus, ii. 242.
See Bishops, Church-Government, &e.
Episcopan GRAcE, doctrine of, Mr.
Keble’s, i. 83; ii. 334—338; Bellar-
mine’s, ii. 335; Archbishop Laud’s
ib.; Stapleton’s, ii. 336; refuted, ii. 334,
et seq.
ERaAsMvs, opinion of, that priestly con-
secration of elements was not essential,
in primitive Church, ii, 231, 232.
Errors, in important points, many in
nominal Catholic Church in earliest
times according to Jerome, ili. 13.
EvcuHarist, perpetual obligation of the,
made known to us by Tradition, ac-
cording to the Tractators, ii. 222, 223 ;
but rests upon Scripture testimony, 20. ;
consecration by Bishop or Presbyter is
not essential in, according to Tertullian,
ii. 229; on alleged virtue of, as a
commemorative sacrifice, ii. 349—363 ;
mode of consecration, Apostolical, said
to be taught by Tradition, ii. 223—225 ;
not atrue and proper sacrifice, 1.349—
363; post-consecration sacrifice of the
elements, not the doctrine of Scripture,
nor of primitive Church, ii. 365—383 ;
Mede’s view of sacrifice in the, very
different from that of Tractators, ii.
360, 362; offering in the, spoken of
by Irenzus as that of God’s creatures
with thanksgiving, ii. 374; Justin Mar-
tyr’s account of the, ii. 376—380; no
strictly sacerdotal act of minister in,
ii. 383—-386; no remission of sins for
* the whole Church obtained by priest,
by the sacrifice of the, li. 387, 388;
Jewel’s refutation of such views, ii.
389—392, 395, 396; and Bilson’s, ii.
396, 397; prayer of thanksgiving in
the, said by Chrysostom to be common
both to the people and the priest, ii.
402, 403; the direct benefit in the, to
be expected only by communicants ac-
cording to Ambrose, ii. 403; accord-
ing to Chrysostom, ii. 408; no benefit
conferred on the souls of the dead in,
ii. 411—423; true sacrifice in, that of
prayer and thanksgiving, ii. 369, 370 ;
that of all that are present, ii. 399;
according to Ambrose, ii. 399, 400,
403; Chrysostom, ii. 400, 402, 403;
Eusebius, ii. 400, 401; St. Mark’s
Liturgy, ii. 402; Bishop Morton, ii.
404; Cyprian on using water only in,
iii. 63, 64; a remembrance made of
the departed, at the, considered as an
Apostolical Tradition by Chrysostom,
iii. 179; service of, of Reformers, ac-
cording to Mr. Newman, mutilated the
Tradition of 1500 years, iii. 319; the
consecration of, by Ecclesiastical per-
sons, an Apostolical Tradition, accord-
ing to Bishop Taylor, iii. 450, 451;
giving the, to infants, called by Augus-
tine an Apostolical Tradition, iii. 498.
See Offering and Sacrifice.
Evnomits, opinions of, brought to the
test of Scripture, by Basil of Cesarea,
iii. 133.
EUsEBIUS, (a. 315) unorthodox doctrine
of, as to Holy Spirit, i. 233; but asserts
it to be doctrine of Church, 7.; unor-
thodox doctrine of, as it respects the
generation of the Word, i. 241; state-
ment of, that Mark’s, and Luke’s, and
Matthew’s Gospel were attested by
John, ii. 31; appeal of, to Scripture as
Rule, iii. 67—69; opinion that belief
in Inspiration of Scripture is not
founded on Patristical Tradition, iii.
305; says, that the sacrifice in the
Eucharist is that of praise, ii. 401.
EVIDENCES, rational, belief of Divine tes-
timony from, ii. 42, 43.
FartH, objects of, distinguished from
Rule of, i. 3 ;indubitable evidence held
by Tractators to be inconsistent with, ii.
55, 56; nature of, ti. 56; must havea
divine testimony to rest upon, ii. 57.
FATHERS, distinction between the value
of their testimony as to doctrines and
matters of fact which came under their
observation, i. 15 ; useful in our search
after the truths of religion, i. 18;
many of the writings of the, suppressed
by the ruling party in the Church, i.
188—193; works of, corrupted by
heretics and Romanists, i. 193—213 ;
corruptions in the Roman editions of
the, by Manutius, i, 205 ; passages in,
against idolatry, satisfaction, Peter’s
Primacy and the supremacy of tem-
poral kings and princes, ordered to be
erased by Inquisitors, i. 210; practice
of altering the, defended by the Jesuit
Gretser, i. 210; orthodoxy of earlier,
called in question by Fathers of fourth
and succeeding centuries, i. 264, 265,
268 ; upon the testimony of, Dr. Clarke
and Mr. Whiston grounded their unor-
574 INDEX OF
thodox notions, i. 270; self-contradic-
tion in, i. 280; difference of, from one
another, in the interpretation they give
to the Scriptures, 1.283, et seq. ; reports
of, respecting the controversy on the
baptizing of heretics, little to be trusted,
i. 323, 324; claimed incorrectly the
sanction of “the Church” for their
views, i. 327 ; writings of, allowed, by
those best able to judge, to abound in
hasty and incorrect statements, and by
many of the most learned judges, to dis-
agree evenonthemost important points,
i. 340; confession of Benedictine edi-
tors of Ambrose as to disagreement of,
even on important points, 1. 282, 283 ;
spoke sometimes with intentional ob-
scurity to veil their meaning from
uninitiated, i. 350; appealed to Scrip-
ture as the great teacher, ii. 7; doc-
trine of consubstantiality of Son de-
rived from Scripture by, i. 184, 185;
caution in reference to quotations from,
iii. 1; difference of opinion of, in im-
portant points, as stated by Origen,
iii. 13 ; testimony of, how adduced by
St. Augustine against the Pelagians,
iii. 16, 17; how adduced by the Church
of England, iii. 17, 18 ; misapprehen-
sion by Mr. Keble of the word, as used
by Athanasius, iii, 107; testimony
of, nowhere made a part of the Rule
of Faith by Athanasius, ἐδ. ; the word
used by Epiphanius for the Apostles
and Prophets, iii. 121; statements
of, not to be esteemed as the Canonical
Scriptures, according to St. Augustine,
iii. 167—171; the later do not appeal
to consent of all the Apostolical
Churches as some of the earlier, iii.
313; use of the, by Church of England,
iii. 361; only witnesses to the truth,
according to Bishop Taylor, iii. 369 ;
our leaders but not our lords, accord-
ing to Bishop Jewel, iii. 369 ; not the
foundations or grounds, but only ap-
proved and faithful witnesses of the
truth, ἐδ. ; testimony of, adduced by
Bishop Taylor negatively as proof
against novel doctrines, 11. 446 ; testi-
mony of, not authority of, admitted by
Dr. Waterland, iii. 504; right use of
the, iii. 506—509; antient testimony
of, proof with respect to the Canon of
Scripture, though not the whole proof,
according to Dr. Waterland, iii. 512 ;
no absolute authority claimed for, as
interpreters of Scripture, according to
Bishop Van Mildert, iii, 513; defer-
ence due to, the consequence of the
deference they paid to the Scriptures
as the sole and authoritative Rule of
Faith, according to Bishop Van Mildert,
iii. 521; the doctrine taught by the,
MATTERS DISCUSSED.
on the subject of this work, Chapter x.
iii. 1-317; the doctrine of the Ante-
Nicene, on the Divine appearances to
man under the Old Testament dispen-
sation,i.386—390; the doctrine taught
by the, as to the appearance of Enoch
and Elias hereafter on earth to wage
war with Antichrist, i. 390—393 ;
as to the absolute unlawfulness of an
oath to a Christian, 1. 393—397 ; as to
standing at prayer on Sundays and
during the period between Easter and
Whitsuntide, i. 397, 398; as to the
threefold immersion in baptism, i. 398;
as to infant communion, or the giving
of the Eucharist to infants, 7d.
Fie~p, DEAN, opinion of, that presby-
ters have power to perform functions
of Bishops, ii. 313—319; testimony of,
that Bishops acted in conjunction with
their presbyters, ii. 345.
Fewix III., Popr, used the word Tradi-
tion for Scripture, iii. 3.
FIRMILIAN, (a. 233), speaks of the Creed
of the Trinity and the legitimate in-
terrogation used by the Church at
baptism, i. 135; appeals to Scripture
as Rule, iii. 212, 213; ridicules pre-
tended apostolicity of customs observed
at Rome, i. 317, 318.
FIRMILIAN AND SynoD AT IconruM
agree with Cyprian as to the rebaptiz-
ing of heretics, i. 315, 316.
FIsHER, BISHOP, says, in work against
Luther, the doctrine of purgatory,
being of necessary belief, must be prove-
able by Scripture, i. 88.
FISHER, THE JESUIT, says that the
Church must believe nothing as matter
of faith besides that which was de-
livered by the Apostles, i. 7.
FLEETWOOD, ΒΡ., testimony of, that
Presbyterian clergy joining our Church
needed not re-ordination, 11. 293, 294.
FULGENTIUS OF Ruspa, appeal of, to
Scripture as sufficiently clear to teach
the faith, iii. 290, 291.
GELASIUS OF Cyzicts, statement of, as
to the principles by which the Council
of Nice was governed, iii. 96.
GENUINENESS of Scripture, proof of, said
to rest on the testimony of Patristical
Tradition, i. 37; this point answered
in chapter vi.
Grzson, BisHop, on the right use of the
Fathers, iii. 359, 360.
Gnostic TRADITION, as held by Clement
of Alexandria, iii. 44—53; his view of,
opposed to those of Irenzeus and Ter-
tullian, 111. 47..
GosPEt,the, said to be but indirectly and
covertly recorded in Scripture, i. 33,34.
GOVERNMENT, CHURCH, form of, left to
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED,
each Church according to Dean Bridges,
ii. 302; no form of, exclusively pre-
scribed in Scripture according to Arch-
bishop Whitgift and Bishop Cooper,
ii, 273—275.
GreGory NAzIANZEN, view of, that
doctrinal the true succession, ti. 345.
GREGORY OF ΝΕΟΟΖΞΒΑΒΈΕΑ (called Thau-
maturgus), (a. 254) Creed of, i. 128;
uses the word Tradition for Scripture,
iii. 4 ; and appeals to Scripture as suffi-
cient to teach the Faith, iii. 238.
Grecory ΝΎΞΒΕΝ, (a. 370) uses the
phrase evangelical tradition to express
the Gospels, i. 73; refers to the words
of Christ, (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20) as con-
taining the whole mystery of religion,
i. 120; appeals to Scripture as Rule,
lili, 140—147, 214; and sufficient to
teach the Faith, iii. 258, 259.
GREGORY OF VALENTIA, confesses diffi-
culty of knowing the opinion of all the
doctors, i. 337.
GREGORY THE GREAT, (a. 592) falsifica-
tion of a passage in the works of, by
Manutius, i. 206, 207 ; appeals to Scrip-
ture as Rule, iii. 208—211; and as
sufficiently clear to teach the Faith,
lili. 291, 292.
Hatt, ΒΙΒΗΟΡ, admits the validity of or-
dination in Foreign Reformed Churches,
ii. 281, 282; denies the Divine origin
of Church Traditions, iii. 398, 399;
appeals to Scripture as Rule, iii. 399 ;
and judge of controversies, ili. 400 ; on
the alleged obscurity of Scripture, ii.
400, 401; against our receiving the
Scriptures on the authority of Church
Tradition, iii. 401, 402.
HammMonp, Dr., statement of, that a
distinction between laity and clergy
is obvious in Scripture, ii. 233.
HAWARDINE, statement of, as to the
Roman Catholic Rule of faith,i. 102, 103.
HEGEsIPPUS, testimony of, respecting
the prevalency of error in the Church
after the time of the Apostles, i. 404,
405; words of, supposed to be opposed
to this testimony, explained, iii. 546.
Heresy, derived from the meaning given
by prejudice to Scripture, not from
Scripture, according to. Hilary of
Poictiers, iii. 116; the Arian, arose,
according to Epiphanius, from not
taking what is said in Scripture as it
was spoken, but interpreting it in
accordance with private fancies, iii.
252; determination of, rests upon
authority of Scripture, ili. 354, 355.
Heresiss, in the Church from the first,
i, 17, and 402—416.
HERESIES, early,pretended their founda-
tion not from Scripture, but from Tra-
575
dition, iii. 458; source of, as stated by
Origen, iii. 12.
HERETICS appeal to Tradition, i. 368, et
seq.; many were noted for deterring
men from the study of the Scriptures,
i. 371; Eutherius lays it down as a
mark of, that they are glad to keep
men from the Scriptures, 7b.; Valen-
tinus, Marcion, and Basilides professed
to preach what was delivered by Mat-
thias, 1. 372; called by Tertullian “men
that fly from the light of the Scrip-
tures,” i. 372; blamed by Basil for not
teaching from the Scriptures, ἐδ. ; in
the habit of appealing to Patristical
Tradition as in their favor, 7d. ; Marco-
sians and Carpocratians said by Ire-
neeus to plead ‘Tradition in their favor,
ἐδ. : the Valentinians pleaded Aposto-
lical Tradition in favor of their doc-
trine, i. 373; said by Jerome usually
to claim Apostolical Tradition in their
favor, ἐδ. ; the followers of Artemon
claimed all the Antients, and the
Apostles themselves as in favor of their
views, 1. 374; Arius and his party con-
fidently appealed to Patristical Tradi-
tion as in their favor, i. 374, 375; the
Semiarians at the synod of Antioch,
(341) say, “ We receive no other faith
than that which was published from
the beginning,” i. 377; and they speak
of themselves as “adhering to the laws
of God and the traditions of their
JSathers,’ ib.; the same claims were
made by the Aetians and Macedonians,
i.378; Eunomius did so, i. 379; also
Eutyches, i. 381 ; also the Pelagians, i.
383; refuted by Irenzeus by the Scrip-
tures, ii. 24, 25; 111. 152; to be con-
futed by Scripture, according to Hilary
of Poictiers, ili. 118—120 ; according to
Basil of Cesarea, iii. 128 129; to Gre-
gory, 111. 209; according to Novatian,
iii. 237; do not follow the authority of
Scripture according to Jerome, iii.
151; haters of the light of the Scrip-
tures, according to Tertullian, iii. 226,
227; errors of, attributed by Clement
of Alexandria, to their careless and wil-
ful perversion of the language of Scrip-
ture, ili. 232; misinterpretation not
because the Scripture is in fault, but
their folly, according to Chrysostom,
iii. 277 ; antient, pretended some secret
Tradition of Christ or his Apostles dis-
tinct from their writings, iii. 491;
urging Scripture in support of heresy,
no argument against Scripture as sole
and complete Rule of faith, iii. 421;
definition of, in the “ Reformatio leg-
um 600]. and Hawkins’s Pleas of
Crown, iii, 354, 355.
HERMOGENES, opinions of, brought to
576 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
the test of Scripture by Tertullian,
11. 35.
Haky oF Porcrrers, (a. 354) considers
all that concerns the mystery of the
salvation of man as contained in the
words of Christ, (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.)
i. 121; commends Constantine for
looking alone to Scripture for the
faith, iii, 98—100; appeals to Scrip-
ture as Rule, iii. 114—120; appeals
to Scripture as sufficiently clear to
teach the Faith, iii. 245—251; holds
that belief in inspiration of Scripture
is not founded on Patristical Tradition,
iii. 306, 307.
Hippotytvs, (a. 220.) unorthodox doc-
trine of, as it respects the generation
of the Word, i. 238, 240; appeal of,
to Scripture as Rule, iii. 53, 54.
Homity on reading the Scriptures, iii.
338.
Hoox, Dr., remark of, that the Bible
leads logical minds to Socinianism, ii.
167.
Hooker, distinction drawn by, between
Scripture and Tradition, ii. 110; con-
sidered infant baptism to be a zeces-
sary deduction from Scripture, ii. 212 ;
testimony that the day to be conse-
crated to God was changed in regard
of a new revelation by Christ, ii. 220,
221; testimony of, as to different orders
of ministry in Scripture, ii. 244; view
of, on Orders, ii. 278, 279; charge
against, by Mr. Keble, ii. 279; testi-
mony of, that they are Christians who
“hold “one Lord, one faith, one bap-
tism,” li. 326, 327; opinion of, that
the word presbyter is more suited than
priest for Christian minister, ii. 384,
385; thinks that the names altar and
sacrifice might be retained without any
notion of propitiation, ii. 385; testi-
mony of, that Tradition is not divine
informant, iii. 379, 380; and that no
Word of God but Scripture, iii. 381,
386, 387; and that Scripture is the
divine Rule, iii. 381—386; and Judge
in controversy, iii. 384, 385; and teaches
all things necessary to salvation,
1, 386—389; thinks Tradition not
enough to assure us that Scripture is
the word of God, iii. 390—392.
Horstey, Bp., testimony of, that
Scripture is the best interpreter of
Scripture, ii. 475, 476.
How .ey, ABpP., in conjunction with his
brother bishops, expresses his high re-
spect for the Protestant Churches on
the Continent, ii. 323.
HveEttvs believes in the authority of the
Scripture independently of the judg-
ment of the Church, i. 95; accuses
many of the Fathers of error on the
most important points, i. 337 ; acknow-
ledges the errors of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, i. 258.
IGNATIUS, (a. 101) appeal of, to Scrip-
tures as Rule, iii. 19, 20; Epistles
ascribed to, corrupted by heretics, i.
197; doctrine of, as to the state after
death, i. 281.
INFALLIBLE interpreter of Scripture said
tobe necessary, i. 21; said to be Tra-
dition, i. 28.
INFALLIBILITY not claimed for Tradition
by Vincentius of Lerins, iii. 200, 201.
InForMant, DIvINnE, none but Holy
Scripture, i. 39.
INSPIRATION of Scripture, said to rest on
the testimony of Patristical Tradition,
i, 24, 29, 30, 37; this position refuted
in chapter vi., ii. 1 et seq.; internal
evidence, ground of faith in, to Tatian,
iii, 298, 299; also to Tertullian, iii.
299; also to Clement of Alexandria,
ili. 300—302; also to Origen, iii. 302
—304; also to Lactantius, iii. 304,305;
also to Eusebius of Czesarea, ili. 305 ;
also to Hilary of Poictiers, iii. 306,
307; also to Augustine, ili. 307—309 ;
also to Chrysostom, iii. 311, 312.
INTERMEDIATE STATE, nature of, said to
be known only by Tradition, i. 35;
doctrine of, ii. 413—423; state of the
souls in the, may be altered by our
prayers according to Tractators, ii. 419.
INTERPRETER of Scripture, Spirit of God
alone, the certain, iii. 439. See Scrip-
ture.
IvMERSION, the trine in baptism, Atha-
nasius, Augustine, Jerome, and Am-
brose, all call an Apostolical Tradition,
i. 326.
IRENEUS, (a. 167) his summary of the
faith preached by the Church, i. 111;
he speaks of the words and phrases in
the rule of truth (the Creed) received
in baptism as derived from Scripture,
i. 141, 142; Latin version of work
against heresies said to be interpolated,
i. 197, 198; doctrine of, as to the in-
termediate state, i. 276, 277; doctrine
of Millennium held by, i. 297, 298;
asserts that our Lord was forty or
fifty years old at the time of his death,
i. 325; judgment of, on case of schis-
matics, ii. 332, 333; opinion of, that
doctrinal is the true succession, ii. 339,
340; applies the offering in Mal. i.
10, 11 ; to the bread and wine in Eu-
charist as the first-fruits of God’s gifts,
ii. 370; speaks of the offermg in the
Eucharist as that of God’s creatures
with thanksgiving, ii. 374; speaks of
the acceptance of the sacrifice in the
Eucharist as depending upon the con-
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED,
science of the offerer, ii. 398; appeal
of, to Scripture as Rule and Judge,
iii. 23—34; and sufiiciently clear to
teach the faith, iii. 221—225.
IstpoRE oF PELUSIUM, (a. 412) appeals
to Scripture as Rule, iti. 187 ; and suffi-
ciently clear to teach the faith, iii.
283—285.
Jackson, Dr., on the testimony of the
Holy Spirit to the written word, ii.
40, 41; believes that Ecclesiastical
Tradition is not an’ integral part of
the Canon of faith, iii. 414—416 ; that
the Scriptures are a perfect and suf-
ficient Rule, ἐδ. ; that to believe that
the interpretation of Scripture rests
upon the authority of the Church nul-
lifies the Scriptures, iii. 416, 417; that
Scripture is the sole and entire Rule of
faith and Judge of controversy, ili. 414
—422, 426, 427; and plain to those
who do the will of God, iii. 425—436 ;
and obscure only to the spiritually
blind, iii. 431—433; explains the au-
thority upon which we receive Scrip-
ture as the word of God, iii. 432
—434.
JEROME, (a. 378) translates τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
by “evangelica traditio,” i. 74 ; speaks
of the Creed as having been delivered
by the Apostles as containing the Apo-
stolical faith, i, 115, 116; finds fault
with Origen that he “makes his own
fancies mysteries of the Church,” i
221; tells us that many, through ig-
norance of the Scriptures, assert that
the Father and Son are often called
Holy Spirit, and take away the third
Person of the Trinity, 1. 233; main-
tains it to be the doctrine of the
Church, that the souls of infants are
created by God and transfused into
them before their birth, i. 327; state-
ment of, that the Church is where true
faith 15, ἢ, 344, 345; holds that many
in the Church, in the earliest times,
maintained serious errors, iii. 13, 14;
appeals to Scripture as Rule, iii. 150—
154, 214, 215; and sufficiently clear
to teach the faith, iii. 264, 265.
JEWEL, BISHOP, view of, on Orders and
Succession, ti. 271, 272; contends that
there was no private mass for six hun-
dred years after Christ, ii. 389; and
no remission of sins by mass, il. 389,
390; in what the sacrifice in the Eu-
charist consists according to, ii. 395,
396; appeals to Scripture as our au-
thoritative teacher of religion, iii. 341
—343, 361—368, 376, 377; challenge
of, to the Romanists, wrongly quoted
by Mr. Keble as supporting his system,
ii. 364, 365; on the use of the Fathers,
VOL. III.
577
iii. 368—374 ; on the alleged obscurity
of Scripture, iii. 374.
Jews misled by relying on Tradition, in-
stead of Scripture as Rule of faith, iii.
430; directed by Christ to rely on
Scripture as the Rule of salvation, iii.
431, 432.
Jory Rute of Faith, Bible and Tradi-
tion said by Tractators to be,i.25,31,33.
JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES, Scripture the
sole and infallible, on the truths of
revelation, ii. 124—176; an earthly,
infallible, not wanted, iii. 531; Scrip-
ture referred to as the, by the Fathers,
iii. 19—211; and by the divines of the
Church of England, iii. 364, et seq.
JUDGMENT, PRIVATE, right of, Dean
Sherlock on, ii. 153, 154; Dr. Clagett
on, li. 156, 157.
JusTIN Martyr, (a. 140) says that we
are commanded by Christ himself to
be ruled by, not the doctrines of men,
but those preached by the blessed pro-
phets, and taught by him, i. 225; un-
orthodox doctrine of, as it respects the
generation of the Word, i. 239; doc-
trine of, as to the intermediate state,
i. 277; affirms that Ezekiel and Isaiah
and the rest of the prophets maintain
the doctrine of the Millennium, i. 300
—302; applies Mal. i. 10,11, to the
bread and wine in the Eucharist, i.
370, 371; his account of the Eucharist,
i. 376—380; view of, that Scripture
is our Rule, iii. 11, 12, 22; and suffi-
ciently clear to teach the faith, iii. 219
—221; belief of, m the inspiration of
Scripture not founded on Patristical
Tradition, iii. 293297 ; testimony of,
that Christians met together on the
Lord’s-day, ii. 217, 218; speaks of all
Christians as priests unto God, ii. 230,
231.
Kaye, Bp., agreed with Dr. Neander
that the early Christians maintained
that the doctrine of Christianity in all
its parts might be deduced from Holy
Writ, iii. 43; infers from writings of
Tertullian that the Apostles’ Creed, in
its present form, was not known to him
as summary of faith, i. 125.
KEBLE, MR., views of, on the subject of
Patristical Tradition, i. 28—35; mis-
quotation of a passage from Bishop
Taylor by, i. 214; mistake of, in claim-
ing the support of Catholic Tradition
in favor of the opinion that “ Melchi-
zedek’s feast is a type of the blessed
Eucharist,” i. 340—342; and inassert-
ing that Catholic Consent assures us,
that “ Wisdom in the book of Proverbs
is aname of the Second Person in the
Most Holy Trinity,” i. 342—344 ; error
578
of, in claiming Tradition as the touch-
stone of Canonical Scripture, ii. 15—17;
op:nion of, that indubitable evidence
is inconsistent with faith, li. 55, 56;
statement of, that complete evidence
leaves no room for faith, ii. 55, 56;
argument of, on 2 Tim.i. 14, 2 Tim.
ii. 2, and 1 Tim. vi. 20, controverted,
ii. 75—79; also on 2 Thess, ii. 15,
2 Thess. iii. 6, ἢ, 80—82; account
given by, of views and conduct of Re-
formers as to the exclusive claim of the
Apostolical Succession, ii. 268,269 ; mis-
apprehension of, respecting our 23rd
Article, ii. 287, 288; misrepresentation
of proceedings of Council of Nice, iii.
69, 70, 73—94; inaccurate statement
of, as to the appeals of the Fathers to
Tradition, at the Council of Nice, iii.
70, 73—92; his admission of Bishop
Taylor’s view of Tradition yields the
whole question, iii. 453; assertion of,
that when Scripture is alleged on both
sides it cannot be sufficiently clear to
determine the point, replied to, iii. 468.
LACTANTIUS, (a. 303) denies the entity
of the Holy Spirit, 1. 232, 233, 267 ; doc-
trine of, as to the intermediate state,
i. 280 ; unorthodox doctrine of, as it re-
spects the generation of the Word,
1. 257; other errors of, in the judg-
ment of Dr. Cave, ib.; appeal of, to
Scripture as Rule, ili. 67; and suf-
ficiently clear to teach the faith, iii.
238, 239; opinion of, that belief in
Inspiration of Scripture is not founded
on Patristical Tradition, iii. 304, 305.
Laity, distinction between the clergy
and the, of what kind, ii, 232—236.
LaopicEa, CouNnctt oF, orders followers
of Phrygian heresy joining Church to
be baptized, i. 319.
Lavup, ΑΒΡ., statement of, that the
Church of Rome has erred grossly and
dangerously, ii. 133, 134; one of the
first who denied the validity of Orders
in non-episcopal churches, ii. 297, 298 ;
admission of, that personal succession
is not a necessary sign of the true
Church, ii. 335, 336; asserts that
Church authority is not divine, iii. 402,
403; and that Church-Tradition can-
not be shown to be the word of God,
iii. 403, 404; distinguishes between
the Tradition of the Apostles or of the
Church when under their guidance, and
that of the post-apostolie Church, iii.
404, 405; on the authority on which
we receive Scripture as the word of
God, iii. 407—409; regards Scripture
as the sole infallible Rule and Judge,
iii, 409; holds that our belief that
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
Scripture is the word of God, is founded
on internal evidence of Scripture, ii.
410—412; and that the proof of the
authenticity of the Scriptures does not
rest upon Church-Tradition, iii. 412,
413; calls the Church of England Pro-
testant.
Leo I. shows that doctrine of the incar-
nation is clearly set forth in Scripture,
ji. 192, 193; teaches that the sacrifice
in the Eucharist is offered no less by
the people than the priest, ii. 402.
Lestiz, C., account given by, of the synod
of Alexandria, incorrect, iil. 87, 88.
L’EstranGe, H., says that the earliest
Cristian Church knew no other Creed
as necessary to baptism than that of be-
lief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
as was the direction of our Saviour
relating to baptism, 1. 123.
LiturGIEs, bearing the name of the
Apostles, not their productions, i. 106 ;
chief of, do not sanction the offering
elements after consecration, 11. 407—
411; on antient, iii. 330.
Lorp’s-Day, Christians met together on,
according to Justin Martyr, ii. 217,
218; day to be consecrated to God,
changed in regard of a new revelation
by Christ, according to Hooker, ii.
220, 221.
Luctan, the Martyr, Creed of, i. 129,
130.
LUKE, gospel of, testimony of Tertullian
as to the, ii. 32.
LUMPER, dissertation of, on Tradition re-
ferred to, i. 97; testimony of, that
Cyprian acknowledged no other Tra-
dition than that which is contained in
the Scriptures, iii. 65.
LuTHER, admission of, that there is
Scriptural authority for Episeopacy, ii.
242.
Macanrivs oF Eeyrt, (a. 373) appeals to
Scripture as sufficiently clear to teach
the faith, iii. 261.
Manvtivs, falsification of passages in the
works of the Fathers by, i. 205—207.
Mark, Lirurey or, speaks of the people
offering the sacrifices as well as the
priest in the Eucharist, i. 402.
Mason, ARCHDEACON, defends the va-
lidity of Ordination in Foreign Re-
formed Churches, ii. 281, 284.
Mass, PRIVATE, none, according to Bishop
Jewel, for six hundred years after
Christ, ii. 388—392; sacrifice of the,
Romish doctrine of the, nearly the
same as Tractators’, ii. 353.
ΜΈΡΕ, Jos., opinion of, as to a sacrifice in
the Eucharist, widely different from
Tractators’, ii. 360—362.
MerHopivs calls the Son, “the most
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 579
antient of zeons, and the first of Arch-
angels,” i, 256, 257. :
MILLennivuM, doctrine of, Apostolical Tra-
dition in favor of, claimed by many,
i. 287—290; Jerome adinits that the
majority of the Western Church in
his part of the world maintained, i.
303.
MissrATEMENTS OF TRACTATORS,respect-
ing the Article on the Church in the
Creed, i. 54, 56 ; respecting the views of
Protestants, i. 56—64; respecting the
Apostles’ Creed, i. 64; respecting a
passage of Athanasius, i. 65—67, also
69—71, also 72, 3; respecting the
Romish view of Tradition, as differing
from theirs, i. 91.
Monvtanism, how far the reception of,
affected the testimony of Tertullian,
11. 38.
Morey, ΒΡ., in what sense he grant-
ed that the Church was infallible, i.
166.
Morton, ΒΡ., view of, as to the er-
roneous expressions of the early Fathers
as it respects the doctrine of free-will,
i. 274, 275; opinion of, that prayers
for the dead were only congratulations
for present joys and hopes of resurrec-
tion, ii. 411,418; holds that in cer-
tain cases presbyters may ordain, ii.
306; on the sufficiency of Scripture,
ili. 393397; his use of the Fathers, Ὁ.
NeEstorivs and his followers maintained
their doctrine to have been handed
down from the first, i. 369.
Newmay, Mr., Views of, on the subject
of Patristical Tradition, i. 23—28; on
Church authority, i. 39; admits that
the promisesmadeto the Church may not
imply more than that some true be-
lievers shall always be found in it, i. 48;
remarkable mistake of, respecting mean-
ing of phrase “ The Evangelical Tra-
dition,” i. 72, 73; claims the Apostles’
Creed as of apostolical origin and
authority, i. 107; his remark without
foundation, 1. 125; is under a mistake
in his statement that the orthodox
ereeds were all identical as formule
or as collections of certain definite
articles, i. 144, 145; extraordinary in-
terpretation of article on the Church
in the Creed, i. 173; abandonment of
the theory of Catholic Consent and the
Canon of Vincentius, i. 434—440;
opinion of, that doubt is our portion in
this life, ii. 46; extraordinary state-
ments of, as to the Bible, controverted,
ii. 47, 48; misapprehension of, as to
Bishop Butler’s argument, ii. 49 —52 ;
opponents misrepresented by, ii. 67,
68; holds what he attributes to
the Romanists, that besides Scrip-
ture there is a second Rule of
faith, ii. 87; self-contradiction of,
ii. 87, 88; says the Bible does not
carry with it its own interpretation, ii.
135—140; misstatement of, that the
Arians appealed only to Scripture, iii.
96; mistranslation of a passage in Cyril
of Jerusalem by, ili. 113, 114; mistake
of, as to value of Pope Stephen’s claim
of Apostolical Tradition, i. 320.
Nice, Creed published by the Council of,
1 153: 132,
Nice, Councit. ΟΕ, Fathers αὖ, pro-
nounced their judgment not from
Ecclesiastical Tradition, but directly
from Scripture, iii. 69—100; decrees
that Paulianists are to be rebaptised,
i. 319; recognises no specific form as a
Creed of the Apostles, i. 114; refuted
the Arians from Scripture, ii. 458, 459.
NOVATIAN, (a. 251) treatise of, on the
Trinity, accused by Rufinus (who attri-
butes it to Tertullian) of being unor-
thodox on the subject of the Holy
Spirit, i. 267; calls the Paraclete “ in-
ferior to Christ,” i. 232; admitted by
Pamelius to be unorthodox on this
point, ἐῤ. ; unorthodox doctrine of,
as it respects the generation of the
Word, i. 255, 256; appeals to Scrip-
ture as sufficiently clear to teach the
faith, ili. 237.
NoweE.t, DEAN, appeals to Scripture as
Rule, ili. 336, 337, 362.
OBLATION of the sacramental body and
blood of Christ designedly omitted by
Church of England according to Dr.
Brett, ii. 362, 363.
OBLATIONS, the, mentioned in our com-
munion-service, not the bread and wine,
i. 375—378.
OpsscuRity of Scripture, alleged, i. 25,
30,37; Tractarian charge of, answered
in chapter ix.
(EcUMENIUS, a passage of, omitted in the
printed editions, i. 208.
OFFERING IN THE EvCHARIST, that ofall
that were present according to Am-
brose, ii. 399; that which was offered
by the soul according to Chrysostom,
i. 400; of the elements after consecra-
tion not sanctioned by the chief of the
old Liturgies, i. 407—411.
Opratus, (a.368) appeals toScripture as
Rule and Judge, iii. 126, 128.
ORracLEs OF Gop, no one teaches like the,
according to Chrysostom, iii. 277.
OraAt Traprrion, delivery of revelation
by the Apostles before committal of
it to writing, i, 7; only a fallible
report of, can be conveyed by fal-
lible men, i. 14; no record of, to
pp2
580
be received as a Divine revelation
supplementary to the Scriptures, i.
7, 8. how it is supposed to be ascer-
tainable, i.10. See Tradition.
ORDINANCES, external, ministered by
clergy, made by Tractators the exclusive
media of spiritual grace, ili. 537.
OrpINnaTIon, the power of, properly
rests in Bishops according to Scultetus,
ii. 242; whether any but episcopal
valid, view of Bp. Jewel, ἢ. 271, 272;
Abp. Whitgift, ii. 272— 274; Bp.
Cooper, ii. 274, 275 ; Hadrian Saravia,
li. 277, 278; Hooker, 278, 279; Abp.
Bancroit, ii. 280 ; Archdeacon Mason,
ii. 281—284; Bishop Hall, ii. 281,
282; Rogers, ii. 288; Bp. Burnet, ii.
289, 290; Professor Hey, ii. 290; Bp.
Tomline, ii. 322, 323; Church of
England, ii. 290—292; Bp Cosin, ii.
292, 293, 30S—313; Rp. Fleetwood,
li. 293, 294; Bp. Burnet, ii. 294;
Lord Bacon, ii. 297; Abp. Laud, ii.
297,298 ; Abp. Bramhall, ii. 299302;
Abp. Usher, ii. 305 ; by Presbyters in
some cases not invalid according to Bp.
Davenant, ii. 306; according to Bp.
Morton, 7b.; according to Bp. Dow-
name, ii. 307, 308; Dean Field, ii.
313—319; Dean Sherlock, ii. 320;
Bingham, ii. 320; Abp. Tenison, ii.
321; validity of, in non-episcopal
Churches, first denied by Abp Laud, ii.
297, 298; in non-episcopal Churches,
validity of, not denied by Bp. Cosin,
ii. 308, 313; Episcopal, said by Bp. °
Tomline not to be always necessary, ii.
322, 323.
ORDINATION SERVICE, our, attests the
sufficiency of Scriptures, iii. 340, 341,
354.
OrIGEN, (a. 220) Creed in a work attri-
buted to, i. 128; contest between
Jerome and Rufinus on the alleged
corruption of the writings of, i. 198;
but little of, that we can depend upon,
i. 199; summary of the faith given by,
1. 216—220; in this statement in-
dulges his own private views i. 221;
found fault with by Jerome for “mak-
ing his own fancies mysteries of the
Church,” ib.; unorthodox doctrine of,
concerning the Holy Spirit, i. 229231;
sentiments of, on the subject of the
divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit con-
demnedasunsound by Jerome, Basil, Epi-
phanius and Photius, i. 231 ; doctrine
of, as to the intermediate state, i. 279;
tells us that our Lord preached a year
and a few months, i. 325; did not
admit the perpetual virginity of the
mother of our Lord, ii. 433; uses the
word Tradition for Scripture, iii. 3 ;
says that many in primitive Church
differed in points of highest moment,
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
iii. 12, 13; appeals to Scripture as
Rule, iii. 54—60; and sufficiently
clear to teach the faith, iii. 232—237 ;
holds that belief in inspiration of Serip-
ture is not founded on Patristical Tra-
dition, iii. 302—304.
PAMELIUS, statement of, shows that doe-
trinal definitions of Rome were not
drawn from Catholic Consent, i. 232.
Parker, ABP., appeals to Scripture as
Rule, iii. 345; defines heresy as that
which is contrary to the faith of Christ
and Holy Scripture, iii. 354; Metro-
polit. articles of, iii. 355.
Parriarcu, at Alexandria, originally
created by presbyters, without episco-
pal consecration, according to Euty-
chius, ii. 255, 257, 259; and Severus,
li. 257; and Jerome, ii. 258—260; also
Morinus, ii. 259, 260; also Author of
Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles,
ii. 261, 262.
Patrick, Bp., statement of, that the
Nicene Creed was grounded on Serip-
ture, iii. 94; does not admit any un-
written traditions as part of the word
of God, iii. 494; knows of no Aposto- —
lical Traditions, iii. 495; on the use of
Tradition, 11. 496, 497.
PaTRISTICAL TESTIMONY, value of, as to
ritual matters, &c., and as to oral teach-
ing of the Apostles, very different, i.
16; Tractators’ view of, discussed in
chapter v.; notin favor of Rome, i. 85.
See Tradition, Patristical.
Pav. or SamosaTA, unorthodox doctrine
of, as it respects the generation of the
Word, i. 240.
PERKINS, W., opinion of,in what the sacri-
ficein the Eucharist consists, ii.396, 397.
PERRON, CARDINAL, views of, on Catholic
Consent the same as those of the Trac-
tators, i. 81.
PerTavivs, censures of, on the Ante-
Nicene Fathers, i. 258; accuses many
of the Fathers of error on the most im-
portant points, 1. 337.
Pierivs, accused by Photius of main-
taining impious doctrine concerning
the Spirit, i. 231.
Pivs IV. orders all the clergy to take an
oath that they will never understand
nor interpret Scripture but according
to the unanimous consent of the Fa-
thers, i. 83.
PLACETTE, commendation of the work of,
entitled, “ Incurable Scepticism of the
Church of Rome,” i. 95; shows that
articles of faith cannot be learned from
the Fathers, i. 366, 367.
PotycarpP, (a. 108), appeal of, to Scrip-
tures as Rule, iii. 20, 21.
PRAXEAS, opinions of, brought to the test
of Scripture by Tertullian, iii. 35, 44.
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 581
PRESBYTERS, opinions of scholastic divines
on difference between, and bishops, ii.
264, 265; said by Dean Field, to have
power to perform functions of bishops,
li. 313—319; the title of, more suited
than that of priests for Christian minis-
ters, according to Hooker, ii. 384, 385.
PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERS, formerly al-
lowed to minister in our Church with-
out re-ordination, ii. 291, 292; joining
our Church needed not re-ordination,
according to Bp. Cosin, ii. 292, 233 ; ac-
cording to Bp. Fleetwood, ii. 293, 294 ;
according to Bp. Burnet, ii. 294.
Priest, the word, understood by Abp.
Whitgift to mean minister of the Gos-
pel, ii. 385, 386.
Priests, unto God, all Christians are,
according to Justin Martyr, ii. 230,231.
PRIESTHOOD, THE, the depositaries and
channels of Divine grace to mankind,
according to Tractators, iii. 536.
Private JupGMENT, the right of, offen-
- sive to Mr. Newman, i. 39, 44; con-
- fined to matters ofinferior moment by
Tractators, i. 46 ; Tractators’ theory of,
admitted to be neither Protestaut nor
Roman, i. 52; right of, largely self-as-
sumed by Tractators, i. 53, 54. ote.
PrRoBaBIxLity, nothing but, for faith to
rest upon in any article of Christian
belief according to Mr. Newman, i. 76,
79; 11. 544.
Prouterrory and Expurgatory Indexes,
1. 190.
PRosPER, (a. 444) appeals to Scripture as
Rule, iii. 207, 208.
Prorestant, Church of England called,
by Abp. Land, iii. 412, 413.
ῬΒΕΙ ΙΒ, MicHaEt, says, “The holy and
Catholic Church holds, that the Spirit
proceeds from the Father only, and not
from the Son also,” i. 273.
Pusry, Dr., views of, on the subject of
Patristical Tradition, i. 35—38; state-
ment of, that “to the decisions of the
universal Church we owe faith,’ re-
plied to in the words of Placette, i. 174.
ReE-BaPTizinG, the question of, sub-
mitted by St. Augustine to the autho-
rity of Scripture, iii. 216; heretics,
question of, to be determined out of
Scripture, according to Bp. Stilling-
fleet, ili. 481, 483.
REFORMERS, OUR, in not adopting “the
- Canon of the Mass,” said by Mr. New-
man to have mutilated the Tradition
of 1500 years, ii. 363; in the revision
of the Prayer Book, said by Mr. Keble
to have given up altogether the Eccle-
siastical Tradition regarding certain
very material points in the celebration,
if not in the doctrine, of the Holy Eu-
charist, 7).
REGENERATION, BAPTISMAL, li. 348, 349.
REVELATION, Driving, that which was
delivered by our Lord and His Apo-
stles to be received as a, i. 6; and the
only one possessed by us, i. 6, 7.
Rogers, T., explanations of 23rd Article,
ii, 288.
RomaNnisM, erected on false principles, i. 2.
Romantsts, Tractators’ opinions taken
from, i. 372; large and incorrect state-
ments of, as to the prevalence of their
views, i. 222; reject as forgeries above
180 treatises written professedly by
authors of first six centuries, i. 194, 195.
Rome, CHURCH OF, endangers the salva-
tion of her members according to Bp.
Sanderson, ii. 133; errs grossly and dan-
gerously according to Abp. Laud, ii.
133, 134.
RomisH, difference between Protestant
method of teaching and, i. 6.
RUFINbS, (a. 390) first asserts that the
Apostles’ Creed was written by the
Apostles, i. 115, 116; Latin transla-
tions of the Greek Fathers by, not to
be trusted, i. 199; appeals to Scripture
as Rule, iii. 157.
RULE OF FAITH, limited to Divine reve-
lation, i. 3, 21; defined as that which
God has delivered respecting religion,
ib.; extent and limits in particular
cases, 7b.; why called Rule of faith, i.
4; distinction between it and Rule of
practice, i. 4, 5; where to be found,
i. 6; not Patristical Tradition because
inaccessible to many, ii. 101; the Bible
and Catholic Tradition taken together,
said by Mr. Newman to be a joint, ii.
87; Roman Catholic, i. 102, 103; no,
in the form of a Creed left by the Apo-
stles, i. 118; the antient creeds called,
i. 153; defined, ii. 60; Holy Scripture
the perfect and complete, ii. 65—70 ;
Dean Sherlock on, ii. 90, 91; argu-
ments and objections as to Scripture
being the, derived from Scripture
itself, ii. 70—85; and from the
object for which it was written, ii.
85—100; facts of the case as to the
four Gospels, ii. 95—97; as to the
Epistles, ii. 97; arguments and objec-
tions from general considerations, ii.
100—124; claims of Christ’s ministers
do not affect question of, ii. 121—124;
Scripture our sole, entire, certain, and
sufficient, according to Bp. Stillingfleet,
ii. 145—150; not vitiated by false de-
ductions from Scripture according to
Bp. Stillingfleet, ii. 173, 174 ; Scripture
a perfect, according to Henry Wharton,
ii. 175, 176; Scripture the, according
to the Fathers, iii. 19—211; and the
Church of England and her leading
divines, iii. 318, et seq. See Eeclesias-
tical.
582 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
RULE OF PRACTICE, Scripture the sole
divine, ii. 73 ; sentiments of the Fathers
as to Scripture being the sole divine,
ili, 211— 219,
SABBATH, JEWISH, not observed by early
Christians, ii. 208, 209.
SABBATH, CHRISTIAN, observance of,
specified by Mr. Newman as a religious
truth not contained in Scripture, iii.
480 ; observance of, sufficiently deduced
from Scripture according to Bp. Stil-
lingfleet, ii 483.
SACRAMENTS, two, doctrine of, derived
from Scripture, iii. 454.
SACRIFICE, on alleged virtue of Eucha-
rist as a commemorative, ii. 349—411.
SACRIFICE IN EUCHARIST, not a true
and proper, ii. 349—363 ; of the priest,
no remission of sins for the whole
Church obtained by the, ii. 387, 388;
post-consecration, of the elements, not
the doctrine of Scripture nor of Primi-
tive Church, ii. 365—383 ; the sacrifice
of prayer and thanksgiving, the true,
li. 369, 370; that of prayer and
thanksgiving and alms, according to
Bp. White, ii. 381, 382; what it con-
sists in, according to Bp. Jewel, ii.
395, 396; also according to Perkins,
li. 396, 397; acceptance of the, de-
pends on conscience of offerer, according
to Irenzeus, ii. 398 ; that ofpraise,accord-
ing to Eusebius, ii. 401 ; offered no less
by the people than the priest, according
to Leo, ii. 402; said by the Council of
Toledo to be offered by the people in
as ample a manner as by the priest, ii.
402; offered by the peopleas well as by
the priest, according to the Liturgy of
Mark, ii. 402; Tractators’ view of,
li. 349.
SACRIFICERS, the people considered as
much, as the priests, by Cyprian, ii.386.
SALVIAN, (a. 440) appeals to Scripture
as Rule, iii. 207.
SANCROFT, ABP., speaks in fraternal
terms of Foreign Reformed Churches,
ii. 32).
SANDERSON, ΒΡ. opinion of, that Church
of Rome endangers the salvation of her
members, ii. 133.
SARAVIA, HADRIAN, on Orders, ii. 277,
278.
SCRIPTURES, THE Hoty, unbelief in, in-
excusable, i. 5; no sufficient evidence
of the Divine origin of anything but,
i. 20,21; the sole and exclusive Divine
Rule of faith and practice, i. 21; infal-
lible interpreter of, said to be neces-
sary, i. 21; alleged obscurity of, said
to require Tradition, i. 25 ; obscurity of,
as a Rule of faith, alleged, i. 25, 30, 37;
this objection answered in chapter ix. ;
Tradition said to be the infallible inter-
preter of, i. 28; doctrine to be derived
from, only by those “duly qualified,”
according to Mr. Newman, i. 45; the
interdiction of, a wise precaution on
the part of the Romanists, i. 45; re-
ferred to by our Church as the ultimate
authority for our faith, ie 50; by Abp.
Tenison as our Rule, i. 60; by St.
Athanasius as of themselves sufficient
for showing the truth, i. 61; the only
writings entitled to name of apostolical
traditions, i. 106—154; on the tradi-
tive interpretation of, Bp. Patrick, i.
291; Placette, i. 291, 292; Dean Sher-
lock, i. 292, 293; no such interpre-
tation of, commonly received in the
Church and thought to have been
from the apostles, i. 295; Rule of
faith, i. 295—297; the grounds on
which the doctrine rests that they
are the word of God, ii. 1—56; the
truth of this doctrine not dependent
on the testimony of Patristical Tra-
dition, ii. 1; saving belief in the doc-
trine that they are the word of God,
must be the work of the Spirit of God
upon the heart, ii. 1—4; testimony of
Abp. Laud to that effect, ii. 2; views
of Tractators considered, ii. 4—9 ;
Tradition a witness of facts support-
ing external evidence, ii. 5; Fathers
appealed to them as the great teacher,
ii. 7; truth preserved by them, not
by ‘Tradition, ii. 8; external evi-
dence to, ii. 10; genuineness of, ii.
10—19; admitted by heretics, ii. 18,
19; uncorrupted preservation of, ii.
19— 22; authenticity of, ii. 22, 23;
credibility of, 11. 23—28; divine mis-
sion of our Lord partly proved by,
ii. 23——26; inspiration of Apostles
partly proved by, ii. 26—28; how
sanctioned in the case of books
not written by Apostles, ii. 28; the
Word of God, ii. 37 ; the sole divinely
revealed Rule offaith and practice, ii.
57—124; the perfect and complete
Rule, ii. 65—70; distinction between
them and Tradition according to
Hooker, ii. 110; the sole and infallible
judge of controversies on the truths of
revelation, ii. 124—176; arguments
and objections as to their being sole
and complete Rule of faith, ii. 126, et
seq. ; from Scripture, ii. 126—128; from
general considerations, ii. 129—176; su-
preme authority of, according to Augus-
tine, ii. 130, 131; said by Mr. Newman
not to carry with them their own
interpretation, ii. 135—140; fulness
and sufficiency of, ii. 177—438; suf-
ficiency of, according to Athanasius, ii.
189, 190; no part of canon of, has
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 583
perished, ii. 438; sufficiency of, to
teach the Christian religion, ii, 439—
476; fundamental points clearly de-
livered in, ii. 445—456; this proved
from Scripture, ii. 446—450 ; and from
their proposed object, ii. 450, 451; and
from the persons to whom addressed,
ii. 451—453 ; and from their simplicity
_of language, ii. 453; and from their
actual effects, ii. 453, 454; and from
the nature of subject, ii. 454—456 ; all
doctrines of faith as clearly delivered
in, as to our knowledge revealed, ii.
456, 457 ; Scripture the sole infallible
expositor of, 11. 457—476; admitted
by the Jesuit, Joseph Acosta, as best
expositor of Scripture, ii. 461; views
of Nicene Fathers derived from, ii. 459 ;
the best interpreter of Scripture, ac-
cording to Dr. Chaloner, ii. 474, 475 ;
and Bp. Horsley, ii. 474—476 ; if con-
sidered an imperfect informant by
Fathers, such doctrine would occupy
a prominent place in their instruc-
tions, but no such statement made by
them, 111. 8, 9; sole Rule of faith, ac-
cording to the Fathers, iii. 19, et seq.;
considered by Fathers as the authori-
tative exponents of faith, iii. 21; the
plenary and perfect repository of Tra-
dition, that is, of the doctrine delivered
by Christ and his Apostles, according
to Clement of Alexandria, iii. 461; to
be interpreted by Scripture, 7b.; de-
fended the Church from the abuse
which might have been imposed upon
her under the title of Tradition, at the
Council of Nice, according to Bp.
Taylor, iii. 462, 463; relied upon by
the primitive Church for the whole of
their religion, 111, 463; the only and
universal Tradition of things neces-
sary, ili. 464; considered by early
Fathers as authoritative exponents of
faith, iii. 20; set forth by Irenzeus as
containing all the Christian faith, iii.
32, 33; called “the documents of the
doctrine,” by Tertullian, iii. 36; and
by Clement of Alexandria, the voice of
God, iii. 49; God leads by them, ac-
cording to Clement of Alexandria, iii.
51; our doctrines and interpretations
are not to be believed, according to
Origen, without their witness, iil. 55 ;
the proper test of orthodoxy and the
true Church, iii. 56; Council of Nice
guided by, iii. 70—100 ; Rule of faith
to St. Augustine, iii. 101 ; sufficient of
themselves to make known the truth,
according to St. Augustine, ili. 105;
Cyril of Jerusalem cautions his hearers
not to believe one word he said but
as they should see it to be proved by,
iii. 113, 114; recognised as the only
divine informant by Hilary of Poictiers,
ili. 115; appealed to by Hilary of
Poictiers as the means to confute
heretics, iii. 118; looked to by him for
the whole faith, iii. 120; our Rule for
every doctrine, according to Gregory
of Nyssa, ii. 140, 141; the judge of
controversies, according to Gregory of
Nyssa, iii. 143, 144; and Ambrose, iil.
148, 149 ; also asour sole authoritative
Rule in points of ecclesiastical duty,
iil, 144; Christian’s faith summed up
by Ephrem Syrus, in a belief in those
things which are written in, iii. 147;
knowledge of, the true meat and drink,
according to Jerome, iii. 149, 150;
fulness and perfection of, according to
Jerome, iii. 153, 154; nothing divine
beyond what has the authority of, ac-
cording to Theophilus of Alexandria,
iii. 154, 155; the word of God to be
found alone in the, according to Ru-
finus, iii. 157; the Rule of our doctrine,
according to Augustine, iii. 158; and
the divine balance, iii. 160 ; that which
does not agree with the authority of,
in the writings of Cyprian, rejected
by Augustine, iii. 160; unreserved
consent given by Augustine only to,
iii. 161; sufficient for salvation, 7d. ;
nothing besides can come into our Rule,
iii. 163 ; judge in controversy, ili. 163
—167; Christ’s will, according to
Chrysostom, giving an account of our
inheritance, and how it is to be obtained,
lii. 173,174 ; an exact measure and Rule
of all things, according to Chrysostom,
iii. 174; called by Isidore of Pelusium,
“the Rule of Truth,” iii. 187; the
authority by which men are to be go-
verned, according to Theodoret, iii.
187, 188; perfect and most abundantly
of itself sufficient for all things, accord-
ing to Vincentius, iii. 202; and ac-
cording to Gregory, iii. 210; spiritual
discernment needful, according to Jus-
tin Mart.,to enable us to understand the
mind of, iii. 220, 221; to be explained
by Scripture, according to Irenzus, iii.
221, 222, 225; according to Tertullian,
iii. 226; not ambiguous, iii. 224; self-
sufficient, according to Tertullian, iii.
227; refutes heretics, according to No-
vatian, 111, 237; so clear that all might
understand, according to Lactantius,
lili. 328; sufficient of themselves to
make known the truth, according to
Athanasius, iii. 239; more competent
than all things to teach the faith, ae-
cording to Athanasius, iii. 240; suf-
ficient to teach us, according to Anthony,
iii. 244; the best adapted to promote
the instruction of mankind in every
age, according to Hilary of Poictiers,
iil. 246; language of God in, adapted
to our intelligence, according to Hilary
584 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
of Poictiers, iii. 247; the meaning of
the words of, to be sought from the
words, and the gift of knowledge
through the teaching of the Spirit, ac-
cording to Hilary of Poictiers, iii. 250,
251; set before us, according to Epi-
phanius, with clearness the right path
_with respect to truth, iii. 251; and life
giving, 7b.; nothing difficult or obscure
in, according to Epiphanius, but ren-
dered perfect to forward our salvation,
iii. 252, 253; to be taken in their pro-
per sense, ili. 253; and the meaning
to be learned from the Holy Spirit, iii.
253—255 ; things of doubtful meaning
in, clearly explained by what is openly
expressed in other places, according to
Basil of Ceesarea, ii. 255; guidance in,
had from the Holy Spirit, iii. 256—
258; our guide to spiritual know-
ledge, according to Ephrem Syrus,
lii. 260; the assistance of God to be
sought to enable us to interpret, accord-
ing to Ambrose, iii. 264 ; in expounding
the, we always need, according to
Jerome, the presence of the Spirit of
God, iii. 265; in those things which
_are plainly delivered in, are found,
according to Augustine, all those
things which contain faith and prac-
tice, ili. 267; the phraseology of, ac-
cessible to all, ili. 268; brought down,
by God, to the capacity of infants and
babes, ili. 269; sufficient for all, iii.
270; easily understood: by all, accord-
ing to Chrysostom, iii. 274; to be un-
derstood by the Spirit, iii. 275; all
things in the, are clear and straight,
all things that are necessary, are mani-
fest, according to Chrysostom, iii. 276;
want of acquaintance with, the cause of
all evils, according to Chrysostom, iii.
278; interpret themselves, iii. 279;
meaning of, to be sought through the
guidance of the Spirit, iii. 280; abun-
dantly sufficient, according to Cyril of
Alexandria, iii. 282, 283; steps whereby
we ascend to God, according to Isidore
of Pelusium, iii. 283; expressed in
plain language, iii. 285; obscure only
to those who are willingly blind, ac-
cording to Theodoret, iii. 286; suited
to the faculties of men, iii. 287; to be
understood by the inward teaching of
the Holy Spirit, iii. 289; provision
fully made in, for the salvation of those
whom the Lord vouchsafes to save,
according to Fulgentius, iii. 290; ac-
cording to Gregory, contain shallows
in which a lamb may wade and depths
in which an elephant may swim, iii.
291; not to be understood by all, ac-
cording to Gregory, but only by him
to whom God and his Christ grant the
knowledge of them, iii. 294; our au-
thoritative teacher of religion, accord-
ing to doctrine of Church of England,
ἢ. 337—358; sufficiency of, attested
by our Service for the consecration of
bishops, iii. 341; Reformers took, as
Rule, iii. 344; the Rules and judges of
all Christian doctrine, according to
Nowell, iii. 344; the fountains them-
selves of all divine knowledge, accord-
ing to Abp. Parker, iii. 345 ; the source
and authority of our Creeds, iii. 346;
contain all Articles of religious belief,
ili. 362, 386—389; Canon and inspi-
ration of, not resting on Church Tra-
dition, ili. 353, 377; ii. 1—56; our
sole and complete and authoritative
Rule of faith and practice, iii. 358;
hereticsconfounded by, iii. 366; the Rule
of our faith, according to Bishop Jewel,
iii. 367; the touchstone of God’s word,
iii. 368; no word of God but, according
to Hooker, iii. 381; delivers, accord-
ing to Hooker, αἱΐ the mysteries of
faith, iii. 386, 387; no defect in, iii.
388; plain and easy to be understood,
iii. 389; sacred authority of, witnessed
by all the Churches in the world, iii.
392; all necessary principles of faith and
precepts of life fully contained in, ac-
cording to Bishop Morton, iii. 393, 394 ;
the sufficient and infallible Rule of
faith, iii. 394, 395; so exquisite a Rule
of knowledge and obedience as cannot
admit of any defect or any supplement,
according to Bp. Hall, iii. 399; the
judge of controversies, iii. 400; inter-
pret themselves, 7b.; all things per-
taining to faith or action, according to
Augustine, are openly contained in,
iii. 400; sufficient and perfect, accord-
ing to Bp. Hall, iii. 401; according to
Abp. Laud, iii. 409, 410; not to be
received on the authority of Church
Tradition, ἐδ. ; witnesses of their own
verity, iii. 408; an infallible Rule and
Judge, according to Abp. Laud, iii.
409, 410; belief that Scripture is the
Word of God, foundedon, iii. 410—412 ;
the sole and entire Rule of faith, per-
fect and sufficient, according to Dr.
Jackson, lili. 414—422, 426, 427; and
judge of controversy, ili.422, 424426;
to be studied in humble dependence on
Divine Grace, iii. 423—425; plain to
those who do the will of God, iii. 427—
430; obscure to the spiritually blind,
iii. 431—433 ; ground of faith according
to Abp. Usher, iii. 435; sufficiency of,
according to same, iil, 437, 438, 441;
Spirit of God alone the certain inter-
preter of, ili. 439; all things necessary
to salvation clearly revealed in, iil.
441, 442; how known to be the word
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
of God, according to same, iii. 443
—446; a full and sufficient Rule of
faith, according to Bp. Taylor, 111. 458 ;
the only word of God, 2b.; sufficiency
of, according to Bp. Taylor, iii. 458—
460; to be expounded by Scripture,
the Rule of the Church in St. Clement’s
time, and of our Churches, according
to Bp. Taylor, iii. 461; testimony of,
the only ground upon which the zeces-
sity of matters of practice could be
rested, according to Bp. Taylor, iii.
464; fulness and sufficiency of, accord-
ing to Bp. Taylor, iii. 466, 467; said
by the Fathers to need no interpreter
in things which concern our salvation,
ἢ]. 467, 468; the plain places of, the
interpreter of the more obscure, iii.
468; no better testimony than, con-
cerning themselves, according to Bp.
Taylor, iii. 471; the only certain and
infallible conveyance of God’s word to
us by, according toe Bp. Stillingfleet,
iii. 471; called by Irenzeus the founda-
tion and pillar of our faith; iii. 474;
by Augustine, the divine balance to
weigh the grounds of our belief in, 7d. ;
a complete Rule of faith, according to
Bp Stillingfleet, 111. 476, 477; the
infallible Rule of faith to us, according
to Bp. Stillingfleet, iii. 487; made by
the Fathers the complete Rule of their
faith, whereby they ended controver-
sies, according to Bp. Patrick, iii. 496 ;
our only Rule of faith, 7b.; give infal-
lible directions for the understanding
of their sense in all things necessary,
ἐδ. ; thereis no traditive interpretation
of, ἐδ. ; a lamp to give light unto our
feet, according to Bp. Patrick, iii. 499 ;
plain and easy to be understood to
those willing to learn, iii. 500; perfect.
and full Rule of lite and manners, need-
ing no addition, according to Dr. Water-
land, iii. 511; and plain in necessaries,
ili. 511,512; the only Rule of faith, ac-
cording to Bp. Van Mildert, 111. 514,
516; and their own interpreter, 7d. ;
a complete, entire, and suflicient reve-
lation of God’s will, according to Bp.
Van Mildert, iii 517, 518; deference
paid to, by the Fathers, as the sole and
authoritative Rule of faith, according
to Bp. Van Mildert, iii. 521; our Lord
directs his hearers to, for the knowledge
of the truth, ii. 71, 72; iii. 544; kept
out of sight by Tractators as a founda-
tion for faith, ili. 544; interpretation
of, not to be taken from early Church
merely because we receive the book
itself through her, i. 425—432.
SCULTETUS, observation of, that Episco-
pacy is of divine right, and that the
power of Ordination properly rests in
Bishops, ii. 242,
585
SECKER, ABP., would live in friendship
with all Protestant Churches, ii. 322.
SHarp, ABP., statement of, that if abroad
he would communicate with Protestant
Churches, ii. 320, 321.
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, the, said to have
been corrupted, i. 197.
SHERLOCK, DxEAN, testimony of, as to
right and duty of private judgment,
li. 62, 63, and 153, 154; opinion of,
that Ordination by Presbyters is valid,
ii. 320; opinion of, that the truenotionof
a Church is a company of thosewho pro-
fess the faith and are baptized, ii. 331.
Socrnran, Protestant plea and, shown by
Abp. Tenison not to be the same, ii.
170—173.
Socrntanism, the Bible leads logical
minds to, according to Dr. Hook,
ii. 167.
Socrnrans, testimony of Catholic Fathers
that remain to us unanimous against,
as it respects the divinity of our Lord,
1 Ge
SOZOMEN, account by, of a Pagan si-
lenced at the Council of Nice, by the
recital of the Baptismal Creed, iii. 79, 80.
Spirit, Hoxy, need of teaching of, to
produce faith in any articles of Chris-
tian belief, ii. 1—4, 40; and to induce
us to give the right sense to Scripture,
according to Theodoret, iii. 189, 190;
and Just. Mart. iii. 220, 221; and
Origen, iii. 235, 236; and Hilary of
Poictiers, iii. 115, 251; and Epipha-
nius, iii. 253, 254; and Basil of Cesa-
rea, iii. 258; and Ephrem Syrus, iii.
259, 260; and Ambrose, iii. 263, 264 ;
and Jerome, iii. 265 ; and Chrysostom,
ili. 280; and Bp. Jewel, iii. 376; and
Abp. Usher, iii. 441 ; teaching of, given
to individuals, according to Abp. Laud,
ii. 2; and Dr. Chaloner, ii. 2,3; and
Dr. Jackson, ii. 40, iii. 425 ; our Lord
acts directly by, on each member of
His Church, 111. 533 et seq.; doctrine
of operation of, in hearts of individuals,
ignored and reviled by Tractarian
party, iii. 534—537; consent so far as
found in early Fathers caused by all
being taught by, according to Theo-
doret, iii, 189, 190.
STEPHEN, Popr, held that all here-
tics should be received by imposi-
tion of hands only, i. 312 ; this opinion
he maintained to be an Apostolical
Tradition, i. 313.
STILLINGFLEET, ΒΡ., misrepresented by
the Tractators, i. 63; his judgment on
the rule of Vincent of Lerins, i. 160 ;
iii. 473, 474 ; on the Romanists making
so little account of the first three cen-
turies, i. 163; ridicules idea of Patris-
tical writings being a certain means of
giving the sense of Scripture, i. 351 ;
586
s
holds belief of Divine testimony to be
from rational evidences, ii. 42,43 ; and
convincing proofs, i. 52—55 ; opinion
of, as to the evidences of a Divine tes-
timony, ii 53—55; reply of, to here-
tics’ appeal to Scripture, ii. 120, 121;
testimony of, that Scripture is our sole,
entire, certain, and sufficient Rule,
ii. 145—150; shows that false deduc-
tions from Scripture do not prevent its
being our Rule, ii. 173, 174; belief of,
that conformity of infant baptism with
the institution of Christ may be clearly
proved from Scripture, 11. 213, 214; on
the right use of the Fathers, iii. 360;
ridicules the idea of an unwritten word,
ili. 471; maintains uncertainty of Tra-
dition, iii. 474 ; and that the Scriptures
are a complete Rule of faith, i. 476,
477; holds Tradition incompetent to
give a certain sense of Scripture, ili.
479; supposed deposita dogmata, not
matters of faith, ili. 481; thinks bap-
tism of infants concluded directly out
of Scripture, 2). ; holds question of re-
baptizing of heretics to be determined
by Scripture, ἐδ. ; on the inspiration,
credibility, and canon of Scripture, iii.
484—488.
UCCESSION, APOSTOLICAL, ii. 247—348 ;
as held by our Church, ii. 247, 248; dif-
ferent doctrine of Tractators on, 11. 248,
249; Bp. Jewel’s views on, ii. 271, 272;
Tractators’ notions of, no Scriptural
arguments for, ii. 337; doctrinal, said
by Tertullian to be the true, ii. 338,
339; by Ireneus, ii. 339, 340; by
Ambrose, ii. 340, 341; by Augustine,
ii. 341; by Jerome, ii. 344; by Gregory
Nazianzen, li. 345.
SUTCLIFFE, DEAN, believes the French,
German, and Scotch Churches to be
true Churches, ii. 303, 304.
Synop oF ALEXANDRIA, Leslie’s account
of, incorrect, 111. 87, 88.
TATIAN, (a. 179) unorthodox doctrine of,
as it respects the divinity and genera-
tion of Christ, i. 234—236; opinion of,
that belief in inspiration of Scripture
is not founded on Patristical Tradition,
iii. 298, 299.
Taytor, ΒΡ. Jer., witness of, on the
subject of Catholic Consent, i. 211,
212; respecting the corruption of the
Fathers’ writings, i. 211—213 ; remarks
of, on the inconsistencies of the Fathers,
i. 336, 337; statement of, that “ there
is no question this day in contestation
in the explication of which all the old
writers did consent,” i. 338 ; statement
of, that the Council of Nice determined
doctrine by Scripture, iii. 86, 87 ; refers
to testimony of Fathers neyatively
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
as proof against zovel doctrines, ii.
446; misalleged change of views of, iii.
447, 448, 452; his reference to the Rule
of Vincentius, iii.448—450; his view
of the Apostles’ Creed, iii. 451; allows
certainty of Tradition only in matters
of fact, not in doctrine, iii. 452, 453;
caution of, as to the admission of pre-
tended Apostolical traditions in rituals,
iii. 456, 457; holds the Scripture to be
a full and sufficient Rule of faith, iii.
458—46i, 463, 464 ; consent of Fathers
noirrefragable proof of truth of Catholic
Tradition, iii. 460; holds that the con-
substantiality of the Father and Son
was determined at Nice, not by Tradi-
tion but by Scripture, ii. 462.
TENISON, ABP., shows that Socinians’ and
Protestants’ plea not the same, ii. 170
—173; opinion of, that Church of
Scotland as true a Church as Church
of England, ii. 321.
TERTULLIAN, (a. 192) delivers to us the
Rule of faith, in three different forms of
words, i. 112,113; says that the Creed
was a Rule “instituted by Christ,” i.
112, 120; calls Christians those who
believe in the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, i. 122; and intimates that the
earliest Creed was only a confession
relating to the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, i. 132; states that, in addition
to the profession of faith in the Trinity,
there was mention made of the Church,
in baptism, i. 133 ; falsification of a pas-
sage in his “ Exhortation to Chastity,”
i. 205 ; first sentence of the third sum-
mary given by, open to unorthodox in-
terpretation, i. 222, 223; unorthodox
doctrine of, as it respects the genera-
tion of the Word, i, 248—254 ; doctrine
of, as to the intermediate state, i. 277,
278; speaks of the millennium as having
been predicted both by Ezekiel and St.
John, i. 300; agrees with Cyprian as
to re-baptizing of heretics, i. 316;
speaks of corruptions of Scripture as
common among heretics, 1. 370; testi-
mony of, that the canon of the New Tes-
tament was formed of the writings of
the Apostles, or of those which obtained
Apostolical sanction, li. 21, 22, 28, 29;
statement of, that St. Mark’s Gospel
may be considered as St. Peter’s, ii.
29, 30; that St. Luke’s Gospel was
customarily ascribed to St. Paul, ii. 31 ;
proves that Luke’s Gospel is incorrupt,
li. 32, 33; opinion of, that the deposit
committed to Timothy (2 Tim. ii. 2), was
what St. Paul was then writing, il. 79 ;
holds that ministration is confined to
the clergy for the sake of order, but
not necessarily, ii. 328, 329 ; that conse-
cration by bishop or presbyter is not
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 587
essential in Eucharist, ii. 229; that
doctrinal is the true succession, ii. 338,
339; applies Mal. i. 10, 11, to the
oifering of prayer and praise generally,
li. 371, 372, 380. 382; did not believe
that Mary always remained a virgin,
ii. 432 ; appeal of, to Scripture as Rule,
iii. 35—44; and sufficiently clear to
teach the faith, iii. 226—229 ; holds that
belief in inspiration of Scripture is not
founded on Patristical Tradition, iii.
299, 300.
TEsTIMONY, DIVINE, evidences of, accord-
ing to Bishop Stillingfleet, ii. 53—55.
THEODORET, (a. 423), agreement of
Fathers attributed by, to their being
all taught by the same spiritual grace,
i. 19, ili. 189, 190; calls the words of
Christ (Matt. xviii. 19, 20) the law ac-
cording to which the Apostles 2n1 the
teachers of the Church teach and bap-
tize, i. 122; appeals to Scripture as
Rule, iii. 187—194; and sufficiently
clear to teach the faith, 285—290.
TuHEoGNostTuUs charged by Photius with
maintaining impious doctrine concern-
ing the Spirit, i. 232; reprehended as
unorthodox by Gregory Nyssen, and
by Photius, i. 267.
THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA, (a. 385)
appeals to Scripture as Rule, iii. i54—
156; and sufficiently clear to teach the
faith, iii. 265 —267.
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH, (a. 168) un-
orthodox doctrine of, as it respects the
divinity and generation of Christ, i.
236 ; appeals to Scripture as sufficiently
clear to teach the faith, iii. 225. 226;
holds that belief in the inspiration of
Scripture is not founded on Patristical
Tradition, iii. 297, 298.
THomas AQUINAS, opinion of, that Creéd
is taken from Scripture, ii. 469.
TOLEDO, COUNCIL OF, says that the sacri-
fice in the Eucharist was offered by the
people in as ample a manner as by the
priest, ii. 402.
Tomine, ΒΡ., explanation of 23rd Ar-
ticle, ii. 290; does not hold that Epis-
copal ordination is always necessary,
ii. 322, 323.
TRaoTators, system of, opposed to the
views of our most able English divines
from the time of the Reformation, i. 23 ;
identical with that of the Romanists,
i. 33, 78; make nice distinctions be-
tween themselves and Romanists, i. 37 ;
summary of their doctrine on the sub-
ject of Patristical Tradition, i. 36, 37;
difference between, and the Romish
Church i. 49; misstatements of, i. 54
—73; self-contradiction of, i. 61;
agreement of, with the Romanists on
Catholic Consent, i. 163 ; adinission of,
respecting their Creed, fatal to their
cause, i. 163 ; opinions taken from the
Romanists, i. 372; the doctrine of,
founded upon suppositions which are
contradicted by facts, i. 401—416 ; early
corruption of the Church fatal to the
system of, i. 414, 415; argument of,
that as we receive the book of the
Scriptures from the early Church, so
we cannot reasonably object to take
the meaning of those Scriptures from
her, replied to, i. 425—432; enthusiasm
of, ii. 47—49 ; self-contradiction of, ii.
91—95, 114; inconsequential reason-
ing of, ii. 110, 111; inconsistency of,
iii. 378, 379; assertion of, that Tra-
dition teaches, Scripture proves, con-
sidered, ii. 106—114 ; objection of, that
Scripture cannot be the sole Rule, be-
cause few qualified to draw faith from
it, ii. 115—119 ; because heretics appeal
to it, ii. 119—121; because instruction is
to be derived from pastors, ii. 121—
124; objection of, that Scripture can-
not be sole judge, because it does not
carry with it its own interpretation, ii.
135—138; because appealed to by op-
posing parties, ii. 138—150; because
of the variety of meanings attached to
it, ἢ. 151—160; because, if so, men
not responsible for their errors, ii.
160—176; because ofits defectiveness, ii.
177—438; as notdeliveringthe doctrine
of consubstantiality of the Son, ii. 183
—186 ; as not explicit on the pre-exist-
ence of Christ, ii. 186; as not contain-
ing the full doctrine of the Trinity, ii.
187—192; nor of the incarnation, ii.
192; objection of, that some things
are received by us as divinely revealed,
which are not in Scripture, ii. 195—
438; argument of, derived from our
not washing one another’s feet, ii. 206
—208 ; from abrogation of seventh-day
Sabbath, ii. 208, 209 ; from infant bap-
tism, ii. 209—214; from observance of
the Lord’s Day, ii. 214—222; do not
adopt all supposed Apostolical Tradi-
tions, iii. 217—219 ; objection of, that
from Tradition only are we assured ofthe
perpetual obligation of the Eucharist,
li. 222, 223; and that our mode of conse-
cration of Eucharist is Apostolical, ii.
223—225; andthat consecration by Apo-
stolical authority is essential, ii. 225—
232; that clergy are separate from
people as a distinct Order, ii. 232—
236; as to the threefold Order of the
Ministry, ii. 236—241; the govern-
ment of the Church by Bishops, ii.
241—247; Apostolical Succession, ii.
247 — 348; baptismal regeneration,
ii. 348, 349: virtue of Eucharist as a
sacrifice, 11. 349—411; view of, as to
5
88 INDEX OF
virtue of Eucharist as a sacrifice, ii.
349; nearly the same as the Romish
doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass,
li. 353; assertion of, that state of souls
in intermediate state may be altered
by our prayers, ii. 419; perversion by
the, of a passage from Chrysostom,
jii. 180, 181; position of, that Kccle-
siastical Tradition is a divine informant,
not supported by Vincentius of Lerins,
iii 194- 900; difference of language of
Fathers from that of, iii. 313, 314; self-
contradiction of, iii. 318 — 320; mean-
ing given to 39 Articles by, admitted to
be Anti-Protestant, and not what au-
thors meant, iii. 319 ; statement of, that
Scripture and Tradition, taken together,
are the joint Rule of faith, iii. 320 ; doc-
trines of, expressly repudiated by our
ereat divines, iil. 522, 523; erroneous
views of, iii. 529; mistaken view of, as to
the nature of the present dispensation,
iii. 529—533 ; notion of Church contra-
dicted by Scripture and experience, iii.
533; incorrect view of the nature of
the work of the Holy Spirit, iii. 533
—537; the doctrine of the direct ope-
ration of the Holy Spirit upon the
heart, is almost ignored by, iii. 536 ;
groundwork of the system of, that God,
under the Gospel, has interposed human
media between his grace and the soul,
ib ; strong prepossession of, in favor
of doctrines and practices which could
not be maintained without the autho-
rity of Tradition, iii. 537, 538 ; doctrine
of the Rule of faith, dangerous results
flowing from the, iii. 539; the under-
valuation of holy Scripture produced
by doctrine of, iii. 539, 540 ; withdrawal
of mind from dependence upon God’s
word to the teaching of man caused by
doctrine of, iii, 540—542; danger of
losing spiritual illumination resulting
from belief in doctrine of, iii. 542;
doctrine of, weakens the foundation for
faith in Scripture as the word of God,
iii. 543; the utter insufficiency of the
grounds upon which all religious faith
is made to rest by, iii. 543; founda-
tions of Christian belief undermined by
the system of, iii. 545.
TRADITION, supposed by Tractators to be
a supplementary record of inspired
teaching, i. 8; meaning of the word, as
used in the Holy Scriptures, and by
the Fathers, i. 8—15 ; how the word,
is used by modern writers, i. 10;
meaning of the word, in our 34th
Article, 7b.; used in the strict sense
in this work, i. 12; important to as-
certain what antient authors meant
by the word, i. 13; not a divine in-
formant, i. 20; Mr. Newman’s view
on the subject of, i. 23—28; Mr.
MATTERS DISCUSSED.
Keble’s, i. 28—35; Dr. Pusey’s, i. 35.
—38; said by the Tractators, to be
a part of the divinely revealed Rule of
faith and practice, i. 36; this point
answered in Chapter vii.; authority
ascribed to, by Rome said to be co-
ordinate, by the Tractators to be sub-
ordinate, but nevertheless placed by
the latter upon the same footing with
Scripture, i. 37. 38; said to be enforced
by the Church, as the doctrinal key to
Scripture, i. 39; said to be the autho-
ritative interpreter of Scripture, i. 42;
said to be learned only from the Church,
1.46; what is its value, i. 51; a word
constantly used by the Fathers as sig-
nificative of the Scriptures, i. 68;
uncertainty and obscurity of, i. 84;
considered by Rome as part of the
divinely revealed Rule of faith and
practice, i. 85; comparison of the doc-
trine of the Tractators with that of the
Romish Church on, i. 78—105; held
to be entitled, as to its substance, to
equal respect with the Holy Scriptures,
i. 79; when Apostolical, according to
Lumper, i. 97—100; not an infallible
witness of the teaching of the Apostles,
nor a divine informant, i. 155—444;
of a discordant kind, even in funda-
mental points, i. 213—348; incompe-
tency of, according to Bishop Stilling-
fleet, for giving a certain sense of
Scripture, i. 259, 260; no correct re-
port of the full orthodox doctrine, in
all vital points, as delivered orally by
the Apostles, handed down by all the
Catholic writers of the primitive
Church, i. 262, 263; incorrectness of
their language clearly disqualifies them
from fulfilling the office assigned to
them by Tractators, i. 263, 264; the wit-
ness of, as to the doctrine of the pro-
cession of the Holy Spirit from the Fa-
ther and the Son, i. 272, 273; as tothe
doctrine connected with the Nestorian,
Eutychian, and Pelagian errors, i. 273
—276; as to the doctrine of the inter-
~ mediate state, i. 276—283; as to the
doctrine ofthe millennium, i. 297—306;
as to the time of observing Easter, i.
306—312; as to the question relating
to the rebaptization of those baptized
by heretics, i. 312; as to the duration
of our Lord’s public ministry, i. 325,
326; asto the rites and customs of the
Church, i. 326; as to ecclesiastical
rites and ordinances, 7b. ; uncertainties
and difficulties with which even that
small and partial consent, which may
sometimes be attainable, and is called
by the 'Tractators “ Catholic Consent,”
is embarrassed, i. 355—368; in many
cases the expressions used, are uncer-
tain and of doubtful meaning, and open
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 589
to different and even opposite interpre-
tations, i. 355; uncertainty of, from
changes of view in Fathers, i. 359;
definition of Catholic, by the Tractators,
i. 362; the antient rival appeals made
to works not now extant greatly affect
value of, i. 368—385 ; claims of antient
heretics to a portion at least of, in
their favor, 76.; reply to general
objections urged against the argu-
ments adduced in this work in proof
of the uncertainty of, i. 416—433;
not the ground of the doctrine that
Scripture is the Word of God, ii. 1—
56; claimed by Mr. Keble as the
touchstone of Canonical Scripture, ii.
15—17; according to Mr. Keble, the
test of admission of books into Canon
of Scripture, ii. 33; not part of Rule
of faith, because inaccessible to many,
li. 101, et seq.; may be misunderstood
as well as Scripture, ii. 165; said to
be the development of hints in Serip-
ture, ii. 177; word, frequently used by
the Fathers in reference to Scripture,
iii. 2—6; not referred to by Fathers
as supplementary to Scripture, or its
interpreter, iii. 9; Bp. Taylor’s
view of appeal to, by Fathers, iii. 10 ;
secret, reserved for a few, a notion
destitute of foundation, 111. 48; made
responsible by Origen for some of his
errors, ili. 59; that only allowed by
Cyprian to be divine, which is to be
found in Scripture, all other Awman,
iii. 60—62; according to Lumper,
Cyprian acknowledged no other than
that which is contained in the Scrip-
tures, iii. 65; no infallible, iii. 93; re-
ferred to by Basil of Ceesarea as con-
firmation of what he advanced, not as
part of Rule of faith, iii. 139 ; not com-
petent to decide controversies, ac-
cording to Augustine, 111. 159; not a
part of the Rule of faith, 111. 312; no
divine informant, iii. 336; not recog-
nized by our church, iii. 356; the
testimony of, according to the Trac-
tators, the sole foundation for our
belief that Scripture is the word of
God, iti. 543; this point met in chap.
vi.; cannot be proved to be of God, ac-
cording to Hooker, iii. 380; divine or
apostolical, notion of, in matters of
faith and practice, rejected by Hooker,
111. 381; not enough to assure us that
Scripture is the word of God, according
to Hooker, ii. 390, 391; oral, un-
certain, according to Bp. Hall, iii. 398;
no important revealed truths for which
we are indebted only to, iii, 400; can-
not be shown to be the word of God,
according to Abp. Laud, iii. 403, 404 ;
distinction between that of the Apo-
stles or the Church when under their
guidance, and that of the post-apostolic
Church, by Abp. Laud, iii. 404, 405;
dependence on, may mislead Christians
as it did the Jews, iii, 406; has not
divine authority, iii. 407; not a part
of the Rule of faith, according to Abp.
Laud, iii. 408, 409; according to Dr.
Jackson, iii. 414; not the authoritative
interpreter of Scripture, according to
Dr. Jackson, iii. 416, 417; not a divine
informant, according to Dr. Jackson,
lil. 417; uncertain and fallible, accord-
ing to Bp. Taylor, iii. 448, 449 ; how
far useful, according to same, 111. 446,
449; certainty of, allowed by Bp.
Taylor only in matters of fact, not in
doctrine, 111. 452, 453; not to be relied
on for any part of our faith, 111. 459 :
testimony of many Fathers no irrefra-
gable argument of the truth of, accord-
ing to Bp. Taylor, ili. 460 ; everything
not contained in Scripture called
human, by Basil, iii. 463, 464; oral,
not the only means of conveying to
us the truth that the Scripture is the
word of God, iii. 469; uncertainty of,
iii 474; no oral, left by the Apostles
as a rule to understand Scripture by,
according to Irenzus, iii. 475, 476;
no need of such Rule, according to Bp.
Stillingfleet, iii. 476; incompetent to
give a certain sense of Scripture, ac-
cording to Bp. Stillingfieet, iii. 479;
as to inspiration and Canon of Scrip-
ture, supplies us only with the evidence
for the matters of fact, iii. 488, 489;
not any, admitted by Bp. Patrick to
be part of the word of God which we
are bound to believe, iii. 494; use of,
only confirmatory, according to Bp.
Patrick, iii. 497; no necessity for any,
or doctrine not found in Scripture,
according to Bp. Patrick, iii. 501 ; oral,
distinct from Scripture, not to be
trusted, according to Dr. Waterland,
lil. 506; cause of, abandoned by Mr.
Newman as hopeless, i. 434—444, iii.
526; warning of our Lord respecting,
iii. 541; faith to be given to the teach-
ing of, according to the Tractators, iii.
544,
TrapitTiIons, the, censured by our Lord,
claimed same ,authority as those of
Tractators, ii. 71, 72; the term used
by Cyril of Jerusalem in one place in
the sense of instructions, iii. 113; no,
beside the Seripture, part of God’s
word, according to Abp. Usher, iii. 435,
436, 438.
TRADITION, APOSTOLICAL, a phrase used
by the antients generally to signify
590
the Apostolical epistles, i. 9, 72; the
only record of, is the Scripture, i. 14;
no writings extant entitled to the
name of, but the canonical Scriptures,
i. 106—154; Bishop Taylor argues
against pretext of, from opposing
claims of Stephen and Cyprian, i.
320; Bishop Taylor says that Au-
gustine’ s test of the apostolicity of
any custom is but a precarious, pitiful
presumption, i. 321 ; not to be supposed
that the Apostles should have left with
the Church either interpretations of
Scripture, or statements of doctrine
beyond those contained in Scripture,
framed soas to negative all the various
heresies that might arise in the Church,
15352; such’ consent” of Fathers as is
obtainable. no sufficient proof of, 1.355 ;
what, as referred to by [renzeus, iii. 25—
31; principle applied by Irenzeus not ap-
plicable at the present day, iii. 30,31; ap-
pealed to by him not as containing any-
thing beyond whatis inScripture, iii. 31 ;
what, as referred to by Tertullian, 11]
38—44; some historical and ritual mat-
ters supposed by Epiphanius to have
been conveyed by, iii. 124—126 ; with-
out the authority and testimony of
Scripture, not admitted by Jerome, iii.
151; respecting some rites and cus-
toms of the Church, supposed to re-
main by Chrysostom, 111. 178, 179;
pretended, in rituals, Bp. Taylor’s
caution as to the admission of, iil. 456,
457; Augustine’s Rule of, rejected
by Bp. Taylor, iii. 456, 457; alleged,
as to ritual matters, customs, and cere-
monies, not of perpetual obligation,
according to Bp. Taylor, iii. 465 ; none
that could be proved to be such, id. ;
no such known, according to Bp. Pa-
trick, iii. 495 ; Scriptures + so called by
antient Fathers, according to Bp. Pat-
rick, iii. 497; infant baptism called
an, ‘but may be proved out of the
Scriptures, ii. 497; unwritten, no suf-
ficient evidence of the authenticity of
any, according to Bp. Van Mildert,
li. 513.
TRADITION, EVANGELICAL, Jerome trans-
lates τὸ εὐαγγέλιον by “ evangelica tra-
ditio,? i. 74; what, i. 72—75; Scrip-
, ture so called by Augustine, 111. 106;
and by Gregory of Nyssa, i iii. 143.
TRADITIONARY, TEACHING, a declaration
that it is, must, according to the Trac-
tators, accompany “ Catholic Consent,”
tomakethat consent binding,1. 361,362.
TRENT, Councit oF, places unwritten
Apostolical Traditions and the written
word on an equality, i. 79 ; enjoins that
no oue shall interpret Seripture con-
trary to the unanimous consent of the
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
Fathers, i. 83; maintains that the
Spirit proceeded from the Father only,
1272) S73.
TRIDENTINE CaTEcHIsM, the, says that
the word of God is distributed into
Scripture and Tradition, i. 85.
Trinity, THE Hoty, the doctrine of the,
said bythe Tractators to be derived from
Tradition,i.31 ; the faith of the Catholic
Church said by Athanasius to be found-
ed on, i. 119; called the symbol of our
faith, i. 120; Catholic consent in writ-
ings of first three centuries, not to be
found for, i. 229, et seq.; doctrine of,
not conveyed to us by Patristical Tra-
dition, clearer than the Scriptures, ac-
cording to Hilary of Poictiers, iii. 116,
117; for doctrine of, not indebted to
“unwritten teaching,” iii. 363 ; proved
from Scripture itself, according to Dr.
Waterland, and taught by the antient
Churches, 11,508, 509.
UNCREATED, term used at Council of
Nice, as expressing doctrine derived
from Scripture, iii. 91, 92.
Unity, of members of true Church not
produced by human instrumentality,
iii. 530; in Church, craving after a
visible, iii. 529.
Unwritten Worp, Mr. Newman’s view
of, i. 24; Mr. Keble’s, i. 29; idea of,
ridiculed by Bp. Stillingfleet, iii. 471;
Catholic Consent considered an, by
Tractators, iii. 471.
UsHeErR, ABP., testimony of, that bishops
acted in conjunction with the clergy,
ii. 245 ; judgment of, that Churches of
France and Holland are true Churches,
li. 305 ; view of, as to commemorations
for the dead, ii. 418; explanation of his
reference to the Rule of Vincentius,
ili. 434,435; holds the word of Godin
the Scriptures to be the ground on
which we build our religion, iii. 435,436,
437; andno traditions of men to be re-
ceived as part of God’s word or Articles
of religion, iii. 435, 436; and Spirit
of God alone the certain interpreter of
Scripture, iii. 439; explains how Scrip-
tures are known to be the word of God,
ili. 443—446.
VALENTINIANS, fables of, brought to the
test of Scriptures, by Epiphanius, iii.
123; pretence of, that Scripture is
not the Rule of faith, iii. 475.
Vincent OF LERINS, (a. 434), his Rule
misrepresented by the Tractators, i. 63;
his practical rule for ascertaining Ca-
tholic Consent, 1. 156; limitations of
that rule admitted by himself, i. 157,
158; its strict application impracti-
cable, i. 167 ; useful toa limited extent,
INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 591
ib.; the practical application which
can be made of his Rule, i. 168; him-
self requires that our judgment be
formed from what the Fathers perse-
vered in maintaining, and held to the
end of their conrse, i. 369, 370; pre-
cept of, useful for certain purposes,
iii. 194; appeals to Scripture as Rule,
iii. 194—207; did not regard Tradi-
tion as infallible, i. 200; his Rule
made use of by heretics, iii. 15, 16;
use of Rule of, according to Bp. Stil-
lingfleet, iii. 203 ; was ἃ semi-pelagian,
iii. 205; Dr. Rainoldes’ observations on
his doctrine, iii. 205—207; perverted
the meaning of the words of Scripture,
iii. 228; Dr. Jackson’s reference to
his Rule, iii. 414—416; toa certain ex-
tent useful, iii. 435; Bp. Stillingfleet’s
remarks on, iii. 473, 474.
VIRGINITY, PERPETUAL, OF St. Mary,
ground to doubt the, according
to Basil, ii. 427; according to
Epiphanius, ii. 428, 431, 433, 435;
according to Augustine, ii. 431, 432;
according to Tertullian, ii. 432; ac-
cording to Clement, ii. 432, 433 ;
according to Origen, ii. 433 ; discussed,
ii. 423—437; not supported by Ter-
tullian, ii. 425; spoken of by Origen as
only probable, ii. 426; not supported
by Basil, ii. 427; nor by Epiphanius
as certain, ii. 428; not supported by
Tradition, according to Jerome, i.
430; pronounced by Ambrose and
Augustine as the faith of the Church,
ii. 434; and by Gennadius, 74.; doc-
trine evolved according to Tractators
by process of development, ii.435—437 ;
specified by Mr. Newman as a religious
truth not contained in Scripture, iii. 480.
Vosstvs, opinion of, that the Creed for
more than three centuries did not ex-
tend further than profession of belief
in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
i. 133.
Wake, ΑΒΡ., speaks in fraternal terms of
Foreign Reformed Churches, ii. 321,
322.
WATERLAND, DR., statement of, on what
ground the Protestants were willing to
rest their cause not upon Scripture
only but Fathers too, i. 215 ; opposed
to the system of the Tractators, iii.
503 et seq.; on the value of Antiquity
in the interpretation of Scripture, iii.
505—512.
Wuarton, Henry, testimony of, that
the Scriptures are a perfect Rule of
faith, ii. 175, 176.
Waite, ΒΡ., reply to the Jesuit Fisher,
iii. 20,21; opinion of, that the Sacrifice
in the Eucharist is that of prayer and
thanksgiving, &c., ii. 381, 382.
Wuiteirt, ABP., view of, on Orders and
Church - government, ii. 272— 274;
understands the word priest to mean
minister of the Gospel, ii. 385, 386.
WoopHEAD ABRAHAM, holds that the
rejection of that which the Church de-
livers from Tradition as a divine reve-
lation, is a mortal sin, i. $8.
Wokrp oF Gop, binding on the conscience,
i. 1; to be received upon the affirma-
tion of its Divine Author, i.; must
have sufficient evidence of its divine
origin, 7b.; we are bound, as indivi-
duals, to sift that evidence, i. 2; belief
in, must be grounded on evidence satis-
factory to reason, i. 5; the instrument
of salvation, iii. 531.
i
Printed by C. F. Hodgson, 1 Gough Square, Fleet Street.
Pe τν = Dh ORRIN TL SY Pig eae Be 0S lide “τὰ ni Neer rete
; i
᾿ ΝΗ
es:
ω 5
ris Vw
es
Hie eee ἢ
a's
¢ Ae ’
gon.
; b yjune -eeeaa des
7 Σ τ
2: -
Α,
i
aa é her * 4
Pipe
; o: τ 4 ΝΝ Ἁ, ye ὙΠ
ἢ fs “4 = Poot = see ome A ew re eee tore σὸν naan
a J sf
J nubs Pies ὕω ΕΣ δ
: ἵν | " ᾿ 5
} ' i “πὰ is 7
2 ΣΥΝ:
ὰ ᾿ "
, hone
7 i ὶ τ
Ἷ LS ae fi 7 Έ a
“fat = ested =
" 4 πετῶν - ;» ᾿
: a
ah yee » 1 ἡ — a a)
BY THE SAME AUTHOR;
AND SOLD BY
THOMAS HATCHARD, 187 PICCADILLY.
A MEMOIR of the late Rev. W. GOODE, M.A., Rector of St.
Andrew, Wardrobe, and St. Ann, Blackfriars. Second Edition; with Ap-
pendix of Select Letters. 8vo., price 9s. boards.
The MODERN CLAIMS to the POSSESSION of the EXTRAOR-
DINARY GIFTS of the SPIRIT, stated and examined, and compared with
the most remarkable Cases of a similar kind that have occurred in the Chris-
tian Church; with some General Observations on the Subject. Second
Edition, with numerous Additions; and an APPENDIX on the HERESY
with which the Claims areconnected. S8vo., 10s. 6d. boards.
An ANSWER to a LETTER addressed to the LORD CHANCEL-
LOR on the CASE of the DISSENTERS. Ina Letter to the Same. By a
Clergyman. Second Edition. 8vo., price 1s.
A REPLY to the LETTERS on the VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE,
by a ‘QUIET LOUOKER-ON.” In Two Letters. By PHILALETHES.
8vo., price Is.
TRACTS ON CHURCH RATES ; viz.,
1, A BRIEF HISTORY of CHURCH RATES ; proving the liab:lity
of a Parish to them to be a Common-Law Liability; including a Reply to the
Statements on that subject in Sir John Campbell’s Letter tothe Right Hon, Lord
Stanley on the Law ot Church Rates. Second kdition, considerably enlarged.
“2. A REPLY to the ARTICLE on CHURCH RATES in the EDIN-
BURGH REVIEW, No. 143.
3. A REPLY to the ANSWER of the EDINBURGH REVIEW to
the two following Publications : 1. A Brief History of Church Rates. 2, A
Reply to the Article on Church Rates in the Edinburgh Review, No. 143. In
Two Letters to the Editor.
4, A FINAL REPLY to the ANSWER of the Author of the Articles
on Church Rates in the Edinburgh Review. Ina Letter to the Editor.
The above Four Tracts in one vol., price 7s. 6d. boards.
SOME DIFFICULTIES in the LATE CHARGE of the LORD
BISHOP of OXFORD, respectfully pointed out in a Letter to his Lordship,
Second Edition. 8vo., price 18.
TWO TREATISES on the CHURCH; the first by THOMAS
JACKSON, D.D., commended by Dr. Pusey as ‘‘One of the best and great-
est minds our Church has nurtured;” the second by ROBERT SANVER-
SON, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Lincoln; to which is added a Letter of
Bishop Cosin on the validity of the Orders of the Foreign Reformed Churches,
Edited with Introductory Remarks. Small 8vo., 5s. cloth.
THE CASE AS IT IS; or, a Reply to the Letter of Dr. Pusey to His
Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, including a Compendious Statement of
the doctrines and views of the Tractators as expressed by themselves. T'hird
Edition. 8vo., price 1s.
ALTARS PROHIBITED by the CHURCH of ENGLAND. In Two
Parts. 8vo., price 2s. θά.
A LETTER to a LAY FRIEND, in Answer to Inquiries respecting
the state of things in the Church, and the Course which the present Crisis de-
mands from those who tender its welfare. Second Edition. 8vo., ls.
TRACT XC. HISTORICALLY REFUTED ; or, A Reply to a Work
by the Rey. F. Oakeley, entitled, ‘‘The Subject of Tract xe. Historically Exa-
mined.” 8yo., price 5s.
QeQ
A FEW REMARKS on the RELIGIOUS OPINIONS RELIEF
BILL, and the OATH of SUPREMACY. 8vo., price 6d.
REMARKS on the ““CLERGY OFFENCES BILL,” as Proposed
to Parliament in 1847, and re-introduced, with a few alterations, in 1848.
Reprinted from the “ Christian Observer” for Sept. 1847 and March 1848.
8vo., price 6d.
REMARKS on ATTEMPTED RESTORATIONS of POPISH
FITTINGS in CHURCHES, &c. Reprinted from the ‘‘ Christian Observer”
for April 1848. S8vo., price 6d.
A DEFENCE of the XX XIX ARTICLES as the Legal and Canonical
Test of Doctrine in the Church of England in all points treated of in them ;
being a Reply to the Bishop of Exeter’s Remarks upon a Clause proposed for
insertion in the ‘‘ Clergy Offences Bill.” Second Edition. 8vo., price 15.
A VINDICATION of the «‘ DEFENCE of the XXXIX ARTICLES,”
in Reply to the recent ‘‘ Charge” of the Lord Bishop of Exeter. Second
Edition. To which is added, an Appendix, containing Additional Remarks,
&c. S8vo., price 2s. 6d.
REVIEW of the JUDGMENT of SIR H. J. FUST, Kt., in the CASE
of GORHAM ». the BISHOP of EXETER. Reprinted from the “ Chris-
tian Observer” for December 1849. 8vo., price 15.
THE DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND as to the
EFFECTS of BAPTISM in the Case of INFANTS. With an Appendix,
containing the Baptismal Services of Luther and the Nuremberg and Cologne
Liturgies. Second Edition. Price 15s. cloth.
AN UNPUBLISHED LETTER of PETER MARTYR, Reg.
Div. Prof. Oxford, to HENRY BULLINGER;; written from Oxford just after
the Completion of the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. ; in which he testifies
his satistaction with it; maintains, at the same time, that grace is not conferred
by virtue of the Sacraments; and gives an account of a Controversy at that
period on the subject, in our Church, which delayed the publication of the
Articles ; affording additional proof of the meaning of the Articles. With
Remarks. Price 1s.
A LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER; containing an
Examination of his Letter to the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
Seventh Thousand. Price 3s.
REPLY to the LETTER AND DECLARATION respecting the
ROYAL SUPREMACY, received from Archdeacons Manning and Wilber-
force, and Professor Mill. Third edition, with Appendix containing the Letter
and Declaration replied to, and a Correspondence with Archdeacon Manning.
8vo. ls.
ADDRESS delivered at A PUBLIC MEETING of the INHABI-
TANTS of ALLHALLOWS the GREAT and LESS, LONDON ; convened
for the purpose of Considering the Propriety of Presenting an Address to the
Crown on the Recent Act of Papal Aggression, Noy. 15,1850. Printed at the
request of the Parishioners. 8vo., 6d.
AIDS FOR DETERMINING SOME DISPUTED POINTS IN
THE CEREMONIAL OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Second
Edition. 8svo., cloth, price 4s.
A VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND on the VALIDITY of the ORDERS of the SCOTCH
and FOREIGN NON-EPISCOPAL CHURCHES: in three Pamphlets on
the subject, containing—
i. A General Review of the subject.
ii. A Reply to Archdeacon Churton and Chancellor Harington. Second Edition.
iii, A Reply to the Bishop of Exeter’s Letter to the Archdeacon of Totnes.
Third Edition: to which is appended an Answer to his defenders, the Rev-
Messrs. Scott and Flower. 8vo. cloth, price 5s.
(The above three Pamphlets are also sold separately.) ΐ
A LETTER to Sir W. P. WOOD, Q.C., M.P., on his Charge against
some of the Clergy of giving a non-natural interpretation to the Prayer Book,
inconsistent with their retention of preferment in the Church. Second
Edition : to which are added the Answer of Sir W. P. Wood, and the Author’s
Reply, &c. Price 18,
=“, er.
ἀν τὸ ἊΣ
ἐδ δ
—
ke
PRESENTED
BY THE
Church of England
Book Hoctetyp,
11, ADAM STREET, LONDON.
FOUNDED 1880.
Greasurer.
FRANK A. Bevan,,Esq.
Secretary.
Joun Surimpton, Esq.
2 "Ὁ ') δ Ὅ0 vl 6€
Ὁ WALI SOd J1IHS AVE ΞΌΝΥΕ 6
MA3IASNMOG LV Ἴ1η
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11